Systems and methods for managing security interest enforcement actions

ABSTRACT

A legal process management system facilitates simultaneous dynamic dialogs between legal process managers and networked attorneys and contractors providing services in connection with security interest enforcement actions (SIEAs). The legal process managers submit queries and deadlines selected to timely guide the attorneys and contractors through the requirements of the SIEAs. The attorneys and contractors submit responsive answers revealing the status of their SIEAs. In some embodiments, an events based management system uses a stochastic model to calculate completion times for the milestones of the SIEA, including the “events” that make up subparts of the milestones. This provides a flexible and powerful system for managing prosecution of the SIEA and for predicting likely durations. The stochastic model incorporates the concept of both fixed-frequency events and random-frequency events, and also allows for both controlled events and managed events. A reporting system is also provided for keeping track of event and milestone completion.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/519,705, filed Sep. 11, 2006, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C.§119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/717,084, filed Sep. 14,2005, and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/765,539, filed Feb. 6,2006, each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the field of legal process management.More specifically, the invention relates to systems and methods forassessing attorney performance in prosecuting security interestenforcement actions.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Clients retain attorneys to provide needed legal services. Clients oftenhire managers to supervise the performance of retained attorneys. These“legal process managers” (“LPMs”) may be in-house at the client or mayoperate from outside the client. Traditionally, LPMs have been usedprimarily to monitor the fees and costs incurred by attorneys inproviding legal services. The LPMs strive to ensure that monitoredattorneys stay within authorized budgets and do not unnecessarily driveup costs (by, for example, conducting unneeded work). For this purpose,LPM web sites have been used to monitor attorney budgets and invoices.

LPMs may also guide the actions taken and decisions made by themonitored attorneys. Recently, LPM web sites have been used in the fieldof security interest enforcement actions. The web sites provide atemplate intended to guide attorneys through the legal processes relatedto these security interest enforcement actions. The template provides ashort static list of predetermined “daisy chain” milestones to theattorneys being managed. An attorney is expected to complete eachmilestone by a requested date and to indicate that the milestone hasbeen completed by filling in the completion date on the web site.

In addition to the work performed by attorneys, brokers may also beinvolved in security interest enforcement actions with respect toparticular types of property. For example, a broker may enter into acash-for-keys agreement with a non-paying occupant, such as a tenant,wherein the occupant is given money to voluntarily relinquish occupancyof the property before a specific date. In general, such actions oragreements entered into by the broker are not readily known to theattorney working with the same occupant or property. As a result,situations may arise in which the attorney improperly pursues courtaction (e.g., eviction) against an occupant who has already voluntarilyleft the property in accordance with a cash-for-keys agreement.

Systems have been developed that create projections of the amount oftime required to complete the prosecution of a security interestenforcement action. Such systems have been used by Fidelity: FirstAmerican; McCalla Raymer, LLC; DRI Management Systems, Inc.; IndymacBank; and Fair Isaac Corporation (dba LenStar). Each of these systems isbased on a deterministic timeline management model that identifiesstatic “milestones” and that allocates a predetermined unchangeable timeto complete each milestone. These static milestones are an inaccuratereflection of the actual timelines followed in prosecuting securityinterest enforcement actions, and as such provide a poor structure bywhich to assess the performance of attorneys in prosecuting same.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides various features that relate directly orindirectly to the prosecution of security interest enforcement actions.These features may be embodied alone or in combination.

One feature of the invention involves a method for assessing theperformance of an attorney responsible for prosecuting a securityinterest enforcement action in a specified jurisdiction. In a preferredembodiment, the attorney performance is assessed by generating one ormore milestones associated with the security interest enforcement actionin the specified jurisdiction, determining a projected time needed tocomplete one or more of the stones by applying a stochastic model thataccounts for the occurrence of one or more fixed-frequency events and/orrandom-frequency events associated with the milestones, receivinginformation on the attorney's actual performance in prosecuting thesecurity interest enforcement action; and assessing the timeliness ofthe attorney's actual performance by comparing it to the projected time.In a preferred embodiment, the attorney's actual performance is comparedto the attorney's timeliness in meeting a projected time for a milestoneassociated with completion of the security interest enforcement action.In another embodiment, the timeliness of the attorney's actualperformance is compared to the attorney's timeliness in meeting a totalprojected time associated with meeting all milestones associated withcompletion of the security interest enforcement action.

In a preferred embodiment, one or more of the events include“controlled” events that have projected durations determined fromprocedural requirements for the security interest enforcement action inthe specified jurisdiction, and the attorney's actual performance isassessed by comparing the attorney's timeliness in completing acontrolled event to a projected duration associated with the controlledevent. In a preferred embodiment, one or more of the events comprise“managed” events having projected durations determined from statisticalanalysis on historical data on the actual durations associated with themanaged events, and the attorney's actual performance is compared to theattorney's timeliness in completing a managed event to a projectedduration associated with the managed event.

In a preferred embodiment, the stochastic model is applied to thegenerated fixed-frequency and random-frequency events by summing theprojected durations associated with the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events, and summing, for the random-frequency events,the projected duration associated with the random-frequency eventmultiplied by a weighting factor. Preferably, the weighting factor is ameasure of the likelihood of occurrence of the random-frequency event.

Another feature of the invention involves a method for selecting anattorney to prosecute a security interest enforcement action from amonga population of candidate attorneys. In a preferred embodiment, themethod includes, for each candidate attorney from the population, ratingthe timeliness of the candidate attorney's actual performance inprosecuting past security interest enforcement actions by comparing thecandidate attorney's actual times in completing milestones associatedwith past security interest enforcement actions to projected timesneeded to complete the milestones, where the projected times aredetermined by applying a stochastic model that accounts for theoccurrence of fixed-frequency and random-frequency events associatedwith the milestones, and assigning responsibility to the candidateattorney having the highest timeliness rating. In one embodiment, thecandidate attorneys are rated solely on their past performance inprosecuting a particular type of security enforcement action. Thecandidate attorneys may also be rated on their past performance in aparticular jurisdiction, in a particular state, in a particularlycounty, in a particular court, or in front of a particular judge.

The features herein may be applied in the context of any securityinterest enforcement action, including an action to enforce a liensecured by real property, an action to take possession of real property,an action to take possession of personal property, a bankruptcy action,and a real estate foreclosure action.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These and other features and advantages of the invention will now bedescribed with reference to the drawings of certain preferredembodiments, which are intended to illustrate and not to limit theinvention, and in which:

FIG. 1 shows a system with a legal process manager calendar system.

FIG. 2 shows basic components of a legal process manager calendarsystem.

FIG. 3 shows a system in which a legal process manager calendar systemis used by multiple legal process managers.

FIG. 4 shows a process followed by the legal process manager calendarsystem when a new case is initiated.

FIG. 5 shows a process followed by the legal process manager calendarsystem when a user visits a calendar web site.

FIG. 6A shows a web page containing general case information provided bya post-foreclosure eviction manager calendar system.

FIG. 6B shows a web page containing general case information provided bya post-foreclosure eviction manager calendar system.

FIG. 7 shows a web page containing a dialog interface that allows anattorney to view queries and submit responsive information.

FIG. 8 shows a web page containing a dialog interface that allows abroker to view active requests for updates on the occupancy status offoreclosed properties.

FIG. 9 shows a web page containing a dialog interface that allows a realestate broker to submit updates on the occupancy status of foreclosedproperties.

FIG. 10 shows a process followed by the legal process manager calendarsystem when a user submits information responsive to an active query.

FIG. 11 shows a process followed by the legal process manager calendarsystem when a user submits a special report.

FIG. 12 shows a web page containing an interface that allows an attorneyto submit special reports.

FIG. 13 shows communications between a legal process manager and anattorney facilitated by a legal process manager calendar system.

FIG. 14 shows a process followed by the legal process manager calendarsystem.

FIG. 15 shows a process followed by the legal process manager calendarsystem when facilitating a dialog between a legal process manager and auser.

FIG. 16 shows a process followed by the legal process manager calendarsystem when determining whether to send a reminder notice or takeenforcement action in connection with a pending query.

FIG. 17 shows a system in which a service provider may access via anetwork a web site associated with a legal process manager.

FIG. 18 shows a web page containing a dialog interface that allows aservice provider to view queries and submit responsive information.

FIG. 19 shows an offer management process executable by the legalprocess management system of FIG. 17.

FIG. 20 shows an offer management process executable by the legalprocess management system of FIG. 17.

FIG. 21A shows a web page containing a dialog interface that allows forthe input and display of information indicative of offers.

FIG. 21B shows a web page containing a dialog interface that allows forthe input and display of information indicative of offers.

FIG. 22 shows a web page displaying an agreement relating to theoccupancy of a particular property.

FIG. 23 shows a web page containing information indicative of anassessment of a service provider.

FIG. 24 shows a related records process executable by the legal processmanagement system of FIG. 17.

FIG. 25 shows a web page containing information concerning variousrelated records.

FIG. 26 shows a stochastic security enforcement action system.

FIG. 27 shows different levels involved in a stochastic securityenforcement action system.

FIG. 28 shows relationships between events and milestones in astochastic security enforcement action system.

FIG. 29 shows a process for post-foreclosure evictions.

FIG. 30 shows a web-based EBMS system.

FIG. 31 shows case information entry in a database.

FIG. 32 shows components of an EBMS system.

FIG. 33 shows a method for an EBMS tracking module.

FIG. 34 shows a flow chart for an Events Catalogue system.

FIGS. 35A, 35B, 35C, 35D, and 35E show event and milestone changes in asecurity interest enforcement action.

FIGS. 36A, 36B, and 36C show milestone and event reports.

FIG. 37 shows a Reporting System of a SIEA.

FIG. 38 shows a Reporting module.

FIG. 39 shows a Quality Control module of an EBMS.

FIG. 40 shows an Assignment Standards and Procedure module.

FIG. 41 shows a Risk Minimization module.

FIG. 42 shows a Post-Foreclosure Bankruptcy Filing report.

FIG. 43 shows a Lock Out Notification and Tracking report.

FIG. 44 shows a Personal Property Advice Box.

FIG. 45 shows a method associated with assessing the time for completionof a security interest enforcement action.

FIG. 46 shows a method associated with assessing the time for completionof a security interest enforcement action.

FIG. 47 shows a method associated with assessing the time for completionof a security interest enforcement action.

FIG. 48 shows a method associated with managing a security interestenforcement action.

FIG. 49 shows a method associated with managing a security interestenforcement action.

FIG. 50 shows a method associated with assessing attorney performance inthe prosecution of a security interest enforcement action.

FIG. 51 shows a method associated with selecting an attorney toprosecute a security interest enforcement action.

FIG. 52 shows a method associated with evaluating the performance of aloan servicer overseeing prosecution of security interest enforcementactions.

FIG. 53 shows a method associated with valuing a loan secured by realestate.

FIG. 54 shows a method associated with valuing a settlement offer inconnection with a security interest enforcement action.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Preferred embodiments and implementations of the invention will now bedescribed with reference to the drawings. These details are set forth inorder to illustrate, and not to limit, the invention. The scope of theinvention is defined by the appended claims.

To help explain the preferred embodiments and implementations, adiscussion will first be provided about security interest enforcementactions, and how such actions differ from most legal actions forpurposes of legal process management.

Managing Security Interest Enforcement Actions

A “security interest enforcement action” (or “SIEA”) is a legal processused to enforce a security interest. SIEA's include: (1) actions toenforce liens secured by real property (i.e. foreclosures), (2) actionsto take possession of real property (i.e. evictions), and (3) actions totake possession of personal property (i.e. “replevin actions”). Theseactions are generally brought by lenders having a security interest inproperty.

Lenders lend money secured by real or personal property in exchange foran income stream—i.e. the payment of interest. Lenders are notinterested in the secured asset per se, but they are extremelyinterested in maintaining their income stream. When a borrower defaults,this income stream is interrupted, which causes the lender to loseincome as its investment is now tied up in an illiquid non-performingloan.

When the loan is secured by real property, the lender's loss is morethan the interest carried. Many homeowners in default also do not paytheir property taxes, do not pay for homeowner's insurance, and manytimes fail to repair the home. Failing to pay any of these expenses canimpair the lender's interest in the asset, as the county may foreclosefor non-payment of taxes, a fire may destroy the uninsured property, orcode violations may cause liability or condemnation issues. Hence, alender will also have to pick up these expenses in addition to theinterest carry. The combination of these factors is known in themortgage industry as “carry cost”, and is generally estimated to runabout 1.5% per month of the unpaid loan balance. Hence, the lender isextremely interested in either returning the income stream to performingstatus quickly, or liquidating the asset as quickly as possible to limitexposure to carry cost. Because of these economic dynamics, SIEA'sdiffer significantly from the vast majority of legal processes.

1. Certainty of a Claim

In many legal processes, there exists a complex dispute involvingquestions of law and fact as to which party is liable and for how much.By contrast, in SIEA's the client is generally attempting to enforce avalid interest, and the outcome of the case is usually not in doubt. Forexample, in a post-foreclosure eviction action, the lender thatpurchased the property at a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession.Usually the only question in SIEA's is how long the legal process willtake to complete.

2. Certainty of Legal Methodology

In most legal processes, the steps an attorney will follow areimpossible to predict because they are heavily influenced by laterdevelopments. By comparison, SIEA's involve discrete steps that aremostly predictable.

3. Fee Structure

Attorneys working in many areas of the law bill based on the time theattorney takes to complete the task (the “billable hour”). By contrast,many SIEA's are completed by attorneys for flat fees negotiated inadvance. Accordingly, in SIEA's, the client is far less concerned (ortotally unconcerned) with how many billable hours are spent performing atask. Rather, the primary focus of the client is the timely completionof the legal process. As such, attorneys working in the SIEA field aretypically judged on how quickly they complete the legal process, ratherthan (as in other fields) how few billable hours they take to complete atask.

4. Economic Consequences of Failure to Complete in a Timely Manner

In many fields of law, the client's focus is on achieving acost-effective solution with a completion date that is usually of minorimportance. By contrast, in SIEA's, the client's focus is typically uponcompleting the legal process as quickly as the law will allow. Inessence, SIEA's are filed to protect an income stream. This constraintmeans that “winning” is not as important as restoring or replacing theincome stream as quickly as possible. The overall time to complete anygiven SIEA will be referred to as T. While there are many componentsinvolved in the SIEA, one goal is to minimize T.

5. Importance of Non-Attorney Third Party Contractors

In many fields of the law, the input needed from independent third partycontractors is either non-existent or at least not time-critical. Bycontrast, in certain types of SIEA's, timely input from independentthird parties (e.g., brokers and repossession agents) is needed duringthe legal process.

6. Volume of Cases

In many areas of the law, clients need legal services from a relativelysmall number of attorneys to handle a relatively small number of legalprocesses. By contrast, the client that retains counsel for SIEA's isoften a large institution that simultaneously has an enormous volume(hundreds or thousands) of cases. SIEA's are conducted as if on anassembly line, whereas many legal processes are conducted asone-of-a-kind custom orders, which may have to be designed and builtjust for that customer.

7. Why the SIEA Exists

The SIEA is part of a structure which provides capital to certainsectors of the American economy, primarily consumer housing andautomobiles. In these sectors, the owner of capital is enticed to investby the pledge of the consumer's right to own or to possess (or both) ascollateral for the capital invested in making the loan. The SIEA existsprimarily in the secured lending market for home and auto purchase. Italso exists in the rental housing market because the cash flow of rentis “secured” by the occupant's right to possess the property—if theoccupant fails to pay the rent, the occupant is evicted and replaced bya rent paying tenant.

In the following description, a SIEA will be discussed for the housinglending industry. While this is probably the largest industry forSIEA's, it is not the only one. SIEA's also apply to rental housing andsecured automobile financing. The following discussion provides asimplified explanation of the housing lending industry with enoughdetail to understand the preferred embodiments.

Nearly all home ownership is purchased by means of loans. These loansare, in turn, secured by the purchased homes. In this market, theinvestor lends the money to the borrower to buy the home in exchange forthe borrower's written promise to repay that loan on the agreed terms,usually monthly, at a set interest rate and to protect the Investor'ssecurity by paying the property taxes, keeping the property insured, andthe like. Thus, the Investor's loan (and cash flow) is protected by thesecurity of the property.

The home lending market has spawned an industry whose function is toassure investors that the monthly payment are made on time, thataccurate payment records are kept, that payments are disbursed to theinvestor, and that the borrower is paying the property taxes and keepingthe property insured. The entities performing these functions are called“Loan Servicers.” In addition to collecting payments and monitoringborrower loan compliance on current secured home loans, the LoanServicer is also charged with liquidating the collateral in the event ofa default. Examples of Loan Servicers include government sponsoredentities of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or FannieMae), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC or Freddie Mac). Inaddition, virtually every major financial institution acts as a LoanServicer.

Forced Collateral Liquidation

The borrower pledges the residence as collateral for the loan; if theborrower fails to pay the loan, the investor can get “paid” from theproceeds of the forced liquidation of the borrower's house. From theinvestor's viewpoint, the risk of loan default is protected by adequatesecurity. For example, if an investor lends a borrower $100,000, and ifupon the borrower's default, the forced liquidation of that property byforeclosure and resale nets the investor the full $100,000, then theinvestor was given adequate security. On the other hand, if the forcedliquidation nets only $20,000 of the initial $100,000 investment, thenthe investor would suffer a loss of $80,000 as a result of theborrower's default. In such an instance, the investor was not givenadequate security.

As a matter of common sense, if an investor cannot be assured that itsinvestment in the collateralized loan is adequately secured, either theinvestor will not make the loan at all; or, it will make the loan at amuch higher interest rate. Thus, the affordability of home loansdepends, in large part, on the protecting the investor's net return fromany potential forced liquidation of the collateral. The SIEA is the“enforcer” of a borrower's promise to repay. The SIEAs of foreclosure,post-foreclosure eviction, and REO sale closing are the legal mechanismsthat provide the forced liquidation of the residential collateral in theevent of loan default. Without these SIEAs, the Borrower's promise torepay is hollow.

The amount of recovery that an investor realizes from the forced resaleof the pledged house substantially depends on T To minimize T is tomaximize the amount of forced collateral liquidation proceeds. Anincrease in T decreases the return from forced loan collateralliquidation. The amount of return from a forced loan collateralliquidation is based upon the collateral liquidation expenses and risksthat increase with time, which are:

1. Property taxes. In every jurisdiction in the nation, property taxesare paid from sales proceeds or during the loan liquidation process.Thus, the greater the size of T, the greater the property tax aninvestor pays from gross resale proceeds.

2. Insurance. To protect the value of the home, the home is insuredagainst damage due to fire, water damage, and the like. The greater thesize of T, the greater the amount of insurance premiums an investorpays.

3. Interest. If an investor borrowed the money to lend to the borrower(as is common), that investor makes those payments until the property isliquidated. If that investor did not borrow the money lent to theborrower, then that investor loses the interest which would have beenobtained if otherwise invested. Thus, the greater the size of T, thegreater the amount of interest lost or paid out.

4. Depreciation in value. There are two types of property valuedepreciation risks to an investor—property damage, intentional and thatcaused by the failure to maintain the property, and market conditions.Obviously, the greater the time an occupant resides in a property afterdefault, the greater the risk of intentional and unintentional propertydamage. An example of a national market condition that can impair valueis a general increase in interest rates, i.e. as interest ratesincrease, the monthly payment a new buyer could afford decreases whichwill likewise decrease the price at which a home can be resold. Anexample of a local market condition that can impair value is a plantclosing, which greatly increases the unemployment in a local market.Once again, the greater the size of T, the greater the risk to theInvestor that the collateral value decreases due to these factors.

Most real estate investors calculate the impact of these factors onvalue as 1.5% of the unpaid loan balance at default (UPB) for each monthfrom loan default to collateral liquidation. Thus, if completing theSIEA of foreclosure, post-foreclosure eviction, and resale takes 60months, to “break even” will require the net proceeds from collateralliquidation to be the UPB plus 90% (1.5% times 60 months). If the samecollateral liquidation can be completed in 10 months, the “break even”number needed becomes the UPB plus 15%. Break-even is the recovery ofthe entire UPB plus all additional costs associated with T. Thus,minimizing T maximizes the net return of liquidation proceeds.

The Importance of the SIEA to the Consumer Housing Market

On one level, without the existence of the SIEA for forced collateralliquidation (foreclosure, post-foreclosure eviction, and resaleclosing), the amount of capital available for the housing market wouldbe greatly reduced; an investor would lack the ability to forcerepayment. Thus, the SIEA contributes to the health of the Americanhousing market. The speed with which the SIEA is completed is alsocritical to the consumer housing market. As discussed above, the speedof the collateral liquidation process is as important as the existenceof the SIEA. If the SIEA is not structured or managed to provide anappropriate T, investors would be discouraged from making home loans.

All control systems designed to minimize T attempt to control theconduct of the entities responsible for commencement and completion ofthe SIEA. In virtually every State, an SIEA must be commenced andcompleted by a state-licensed attorney. Thus, a large component ofminimizing T is managing the attorney who controls completion of theSIEA. The commencement, management, and supervision of SIEA forcedcollateral liquidation process introduces the additional function of theProcess Manager (PM). The PM manages each appropriate SIEA so as tominimize T The PM function can be done either in-house by the loanservicer or it can be done by an independent third party (commonlycalled an outsourcer). The PM function may be done in-house by the loanservicer or it may be outsourced. Every loan servicer employs a PM(whether in-house or outsourced), which will have process controldedicated to minimizing T for foreclosure, post-foreclosure evictions,related bankruptcy motions, and foreclosed property resale.

SIEA's include the following examples.

1. Post-Foreclosure Evictions

Post-foreclosure eviction actions are taken to remove a former owner, ora tenant of a former owner, from possession of a property after thelender has completed a successful foreclosure action. There aregenerally no defenses to a post-foreclosure eviction. The longer ittakes to complete the eviction, the more it costs the lender in carrycost. For example, on a $200,000 loan, each day's delay typically coststhe lender at least $100. Thus, a 30 day delay over the course of asingle eviction will cost the lender $3,000. In post-foreclosureeviction actions, a real estate broker commonly provides occupantinformation, property information and vacancy information. For example,many occupants will vacate a property during the eviction process; ifthe broker is not regularly checking the property, this vacancy will gounnoticed and unreported, which can result in significant loss to thelender. If an occupant vacated a property and the broker failed to do avacancy check, leaving the property open and unsecured, the value of theproperty could be reduced by vandalism by tens of thousands of dollars.In some jurisdictions, tenants must be given a 30-day notice to vacateprior to the commencement of the eviction process. By comparison, formerowners are typically entitled to no notice at all. Accordingly, it isimportant that the broker report whether the occupant is a tenant or anowner. If the property is reported as owner-occupied when it is in facttenant-occupied, the entire case may be dismissed, and the legal processtypically is started anew. Such an error can easily add 60 days totimeline and double the legal fees. For a $200,000 loan, this failure tocommunicate may cost the lender $6,000 in carry cost. Similarly, if thewrong address is supplied and that error is not discovered until the endof case, another 90 days, or $9,000 in carry cost, may be added to thelender's loss. The steps involved to carry out a post-foreclosureeviction action vary with jurisdiction. The following steps areexemplary for Florida: (1) receive foreclosure documents (statutoryrequirement); (2) writ out (statutory requirement); (3) writ issued(statutory); (4) forcible eviction by sheriff (statutory).

2. Relief from Stay Motions (Post-Foreclosure Bankruptcy)

Upon the filing for bankruptcy protection, what is known as an“automatic stay” is ordinarily put into effect. In essence, theautomatic stay by law prohibits lenders from proceeding with theeviction. Lenders then obtain a Relief from Stay Order from theBankruptcy Court in order to continue with the eviction. This motion isentirely a creature of statute. Real estate brokers should be advised ofa Bankruptcy filing and instructed to cease any contact with theoccupant until a Relief from Stay is obtained. Contact with the occupantduring this time can expose the lender to liability for violation of theautomatic stay. The steps required to carry out a relief-from-staymotion vary with jurisdiction. The following steps are exemplary: (1)file motion for relief from stay (statutory requirement); (2) Courthearing on the motion (statutory requirement); (3) Court Order granted(statutory); (4) Court Order becomes effective (statutory requirement).

3. Objections to Plan (Post-Foreclosure Bankruptcy, Chapter 13)

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing allows a borrower to keep his home andpay court-ordered payments to cure any arrearages on a mortgage/deed oftrust. The payment of arrearages is called a “Plan.” A Chapter 13 Planis ordinarily available only if the bankruptcy is filed prior to theforeclosure process, which vests title in the lender when completed. Itis improper to include property owned by the lender via foreclosure salein a Chapter 13 Plan. Despite this prohibition, many borrowers willinclude a home lost in foreclosure in a Chapter 13 Plan. When thisoccurs, the lender generally files an “Objection to the Plan” on thegrounds the home is not an asset of the Bankruptcy Estate. Failure to doso can cause the foreclosure sale to be voided by the Bankruptcy Judge.Real estate brokers should be advised of a Bankruptcy filing andinstructed to cease any contact with the occupant until an Objection toPlan has been completed. Contact with the occupant during this time canexpose the lender to liability. The steps required to carry out anObjection to Plan varies with jurisdiction. The following steps areexemplary: (1) file Objection to Plan (statutory requirement); (2) Courthearing on the Objection (statutory requirement); (3) Objection granted(statutory requirement); (4) Objection becomes effective (statutoryrequirement).

4. Foreclosure Actions

Foreclosure actions are taken to liquidate a non-performing real estateasset. These actions may be court actions (i.e. judicial foreclosures),or private actions taken by a private trustee according to the terms ofthe security instrument (i.e. non-judicial foreclosures). Brokerinspections are typically needed to determine value, condition, and ifpre-sale legal process is needed to correct any Code violations. In manystates, the amount bid at the foreclosure sale by the lender holding thesecurity interest determines a wide range of legal liabilities, such asright to deficiency judgments and insurance proceeds. As an example, aproperty might have a significant hazardous waste issue that the lenderwishes to preserve against the borrower. If the amount bid at theforeclosure sale does not take that issue into account, the lender mightlose all rights to seek redress from the borrower for the waste of itssecurity. If the problem is of sufficient magnitude, the lender may wishto forego the foreclosure in total. This information typically can onlybe obtained by use of a Broker or a real estate inspection service. Thesteps involved to carry out a foreclosure vary with jurisdiction. Thefollowing steps are exemplary for California: (1) send 30-daypre-foreclosure letter (standard requirement in the Deed of Trust usedin the industry) (2) Notice of Default (statutory requirement); (3)Notice of Sale (statutory requirement); (4) Foreclosure Sale (statutoryrequirement); (5) Deed recordation (statutory requirement).

5. Relief from Stay Motions, Unconditional Order (Pre-ForeclosureBankruptcy)

Before the foreclosure sale is completed, former owners or occupants mayfile a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. As noted above, upon thefiling of a bankruptcy, what is known as an “automatic stay” is put intoeffect. In essence, the automatic stay by law prohibits lenders frommoving forward to collect any debt against the debtor. Lenders typicallyobtain a Relief from Stay Order from the Bankruptcy Court in order tocontinue with their foreclosure action or a repossession of personalproperty. There are two type of Orders obtained: (a) an unconditionalorder that allows the foreclosure process to proceed without anylimitation and (b) a conditional order which grants the relief but staysits effectiveness so long as the borrower makes his monthly payments(this is often called an “adequate protection order”). Most bankruptcyJudges require an opinion regarding the value of the home as aprecondition to the granting of an unconditional Order. For example, inthe Ninth Circuit no unconditional Relief from Stay Order can be grantedunless the amount owed on the lien secured by the home exceeds 80% ofthe value of that home. The steps involved to carry out a Relief fromStay Motion (pre-foreclosure bankruptcy) for an Unconditional Order varywith jurisdiction. The following steps are exemplary: (1) file motionfor relief from stay (statutory requirement); (2) Court hearing on themotion (statutory requirement); (3) Court Order granted (statutoryrequirement); (4) Court Order becomes effective (statutory requirement).

6. Relief from Stay Motions, Conditional Order (Pre-ForeclosureBankruptcy)

There are two components to a Conditional Order granting Relief fromStay—the obtaining of the Order and its enforcement. A typicalConditional Order will require the borrower to make monthly payments tokeep the automatic stay in force. If the payments are missed, the lendergives the borrower and the borrower's attorney written notice of defaultand if the default is not cured within a set time (often ten days), theRelief from Stay Order is granted upon the Lender's attorney filing acertificate with the Court of the default. The process to obtain aconditional Order is identical to that for obtaining an unconditionalOrder, it is just the terms of the Order that differ. The steps involvedto carry out a Relief from Stay Motion (pre-foreclosure bankruptcy) foran Unconditional Order vary with jurisdiction. As an example, thefollowing steps are exemplary: (1) file motion for relief from stay(statutory requirement); (2) Court hearing on the motion (statutoryrequirement); (3) Court Order granted (statutory requirement); (4) CourtOrder becomes effective (statutory requirement); (5) Notice of Defaultin Payment (per terms of Court Order).

7. Proofs of Claim (Pre-Foreclosure Bankruptcy)

If the debtor files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, the lenderwill often need to file a Proof of Claim with the Bankruptcy Court toevidence their secured claim to the debtor's assets, in particular thehouse. The steps involved to carry out a Proofs of Claim(pre-foreclosure bankruptcy) vary with jurisdiction. The following stepsare exemplary: (1) Prepare claim (statutory requirement); (2) File claim(statutory requirement).

8. Objections to Plan (Pre-Foreclosure Bankruptcy)

If the debtor files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, the debtorwill either at filing or shortly thereafter include a Chapter 13reorganization plan, which plan will set forth how the debtor plans toemerge from bankruptcy and how debt payments are to be structured. Thelender objects to the plan confirmation before the confirmation date iflender believes its security interest or income stream is being unfairlyjeopardized or impaired. The steps involved to carry out an Objection toPlan (pre-foreclosure bankruptcy) vary with jurisdiction. The followingsteps are exemplary: (1) file Objection to Plan (statutory requirement);(2) Court hearing on the Objection (statutory requirement); (3)Objection granted (statutory); (4) Objection becomes effective(statutory requirement).

9. Landlord-Tenant Evictions

Landlord-tenant evictions are actions commenced by a landlord to evict atenant. The steps involved to carry out a landlord-tenant eviction varywith jurisdiction. The following steps are exemplary in California: (1)3 day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (statutory requirement); (2) Complaint(statutory requirement); (3) Default out (statutory requirement); (4)Default entered (statutory requirement); (5) Writ out (statutoryrequirement); (6) Lock out (statutory requirement).

10. Replevin Actions

A replevin action is an action by a security holder of personal propertyto obtain possession of that property. The most common use is to obtainpossession of an automobile that cannot be repossessed by means of aprivate repossession company. In replevin actions, an independentcontractor is commonly used to provide information on the property andits condition. The steps involved to carry out a replevin action varywith jurisdiction. The following steps are exemplary in California: (1)Notice of default (statutory requirement); (2) Complaint and Motion forPossession (statutory requirement); (3) Complaint and Motion served(statutory requirement); (4) Motion granted (statutory requirement); (5)Order for repossession out (statutory requirement); (6) Default Judgmententered (statutory requirement).

The LPM Calendar System

FIG. 1 illustrates a system 10 wherein a legal process managementcalendar system (“LPM Calendar System”) 16 may be used to facilitate thesupervision of service providers (such as attorneys 14 and independentcontractors 13) retained by a client 12 to conduct a SIEA through theuse of a communication network 20, such as the Internet. The LPMCalendar System 16 facilitates a “learning circle dialogue” comprising asequence of queries received from a legal process manager (LPM 18) andcorresponding responses received from the Users 12-14. The dialog isdynamic, and behaves like an ongoing and unfolding story that is writtenchapter by chapter, rather than as a static process. This dynamic dialogmay be referred to as a “Managed Learning Circle Dialogue,” or “MLCD.”

The illustration of Client 12 in FIG. 1 is intended to illustrate one ormore clients needing simultaneous legal services for multiple legalactions associated with post-foreclosure bankruptcies, post-foreclosureevictions, landlord-tenant evictions, relief-from-stay motions, and/orreplevin actions. It is understood that the actions of the Client 12described herein may be carried out by the Client 12 personally, or byanother acting under the direction of the Client 12.

Attorney 14 in FIG. 1 depicts one or more attorneys retained to performlegal services in connection with one or more SIEA's. It is understoodthat the actions of the Attorney 14 may be carried out either by theattorney personally or by another acting under his or her direction.Contractor 13 in FIG. 1 depicts one or more independent contractorsretained to perform services in connection with the SIEA being handledby the Attorney 14. Examples of independent contractors include realestate brokers (for post-foreclosure evictions) and repossessors (forautomobile replevin actions). It is understood that the actions of theContractor 13 may be carried out by the contractor personally or byanother acting under his or her direction. For simplicity, reference ismade to a single Attorney 14 and a single Contractor 13, although it isunderstood that multiple attorneys and/or multiple contractors (or, insome instances, no contractors) may be involved.

As shown in FIG. 1, the Client 12, Contractor 13, and Attorney 14, (alsoreferred to as “User” or “Users”) are each associated with one or moreuser devices or systems (12A, 13A, 14A, respectively) that allows accessto the communication network 20. As shown by the arrows in FIG. 1, theclient 12, contractor 13, and Attorney 14 may exchange information withthe LPM Calendar System 16. The system 10 further includes a legalprocess manager (“LPM”) 18 in communication with the LPM Calendar System16.

By using a sufficiently large communication network, such as theInternet 20, the Client 12, Attorney 14, and Contractor 13 may easilycommunicate with the LPM Calendar System 16 (described in detail below)through conventional and well-known means. Accordingly, the system canaccommodate communications associated with the management of enormousnumbers of legal actions distributed over a large geographic area. Assuch, the Attorney 14 and Contractor 13 may be located remotely from theClient 12 and each other.

The Legal Process Manager

The LPM 18 is an intelligent system that is knowledgeable about therules, requirements, and procedures of the secured interest enforcementlegal process to be managed. The LPM 18 includes a decision-makingprocedure through which it has the ability to generate queries andtransmit them to the LPM Calendar System 16. A query includes a questionor instruction directed at a user of the LPM Calendar System 16. A queryis chosen by the LPM 18 to monitor and guide the service providerthrough the legal process in a proper and timely manner. A query may beprovided in the form of a question, e.g., “Has a writ been filed?” Aquery may also be provided in the form of a statement, e.g., “File awrit.”

A query is preferably associated with a deadline. A deadline specifies adate (and perhaps time) by which a service provider is expected toprovide information to the LPM Calendar System 16 in response to aquery. By providing a service provider with a query and a deadline, theLPM 18 provides guidance to the service provider as to what is requiredof him or her to remain in compliance with the requirements of the legalprocess.

The details of the queries and deadlines generated by the LPM 18 dependupon the milestones at issue. As discussed at length above, themilestones vary between the various legal areas (e.g., post-foreclosurebankruptcies, post-foreclosure evictions, landlord-tenant evictions,relief-from-stay motions, and/or replevin actions), jurisdictionthroughout the United States, and Client 12 instructions. For example,for a post-foreclosure eviction action in California, the LPM 18recognizes the jurisdiction and generates queries derived fromCalifornia law, and not from the law of another state. In addition, thequeries associated with the milestones for one Client 12 may not beacceptable to another. Finally, legal processes associated with securedinstrument enforcement actions each involve well-defined statutory orindustry accepted milestones that may be readily incorporated intoautomated processes.

The details of the queries and deadlines generated by the LPM 18 willalso depend upon the specific facts of the case. Which facts arerelevant will generally also depend upon which legal action is at issue,as well as the jurisdiction and the procedural posture of the case.These facts will also include the past conduct of the service providersin the case (query responses and timing thereof). For example, when anattorney transmits to the LPM Calendar 16 the answer “Yes” to the query,“Has a writ been filed?” the LPM Calendar 16 transmits that response tothe LPM 18 for inclusion in the fact pattern. Based on the attorney'sresponse (and perhaps its timeliness), the LPM 18 can then use itsdecision-making process to generate the next query and deadline for theattorney.

The LPM 18 may use any of a variety of approaches to derive the queriesand deadlines from the appropriate statutory laws, Client instructions,and the facts of the case. The LPM 18 could be entirely automated,generating queries by applying a set of rules, databases, and/or lookuptables designed to handle every contingency of the legal process ofinterest. Alternatively, the LPM 18 may include automated and manualcomponents. Or, it may be done entirely by a manual component. Forexample, trained persons could generate the queries and deadlines withthe assistance of one or more databases or lookup tables designed forthe particular legal process being managed. The services of the LPM 18may be provided by a third party unassociated with the LPM CalendarSystem 16. Alternatively, the LPM Calendar System 16 and the LPM 18 maybe provided in a single system.

As shown in FIG. 1, information is exchanged between the LPM CalendarSystem 16 and the LPM 18. This exchange may be provided by anycommunication means, including a LAN or WAN network or the Internet 20.The LPM Calendar System 16 and LPM 18 communicate with each otherthrough any protocol that allows the communication of a message, such asfor example, a text-based message. Preferably the communication from theLPM Calendar System 16 to the LPM comprises e-mail as is well known inthe art.

The LPM Calendar System

FIG. 2 illustrates a preferred embodiment for the LPM Calendar System16. The LPM Calendar 16 includes a web server 25 connected to theInternet 20. As shown in FIG. 2, Clients 12, Contractors 13, andAttorneys 14 can access the LPM Calendar System 16 via the Internet 20.It is to be understood that the web server 25 could be distributed overone or more physical machines networked in a variety of configurations.

FIG. 2 further illustrates that the LPM Calendar System 16 includes amodule set 30 and a database set 40 in communication with each other andwith the web server 25. The module set 30 includes a Calendar InterfaceModule 31, an Update Module 32, an LP OUT Module 33, an LP IN Module 34,an Exception Module 35, a Notification Module 36, a Billing Module 37,and a Referral Module 38. The modules 31-38 of the module set 30 areeach in communication with one another and with the web server 25 anddatabase set 40. The modules 31-38 provide functionality preferablyimplemented via computer software and hardware. The functionality may beprovided via software or hardware as is well known in the art. Adescription of the functions provided by each of the modules 31-38 isprovided below, after a description of the database set 40. The databaseset 40 includes a Case Database 42, a User Database 44, a Pending QueryDatabase 46, and an Upload Database 48. The databases 42, 44, 46, 48 ofthe database set 40 are each in communication with one another and withthe web server 25 and module set 30.

The Case Database 42 includes information associated with a particularcase. As used herein, “case” refers to a single legal process that isbeing managed. In a preferred embodiment, the Case Database 42 includesnames and contact information for the client, any opposing parties, andany third parties in the case. In a preferred embodiment, the CaseDatabase 42 further includes documentation associated with the case,such as pleadings, Court orders, motions, writs, title documents, andlegal memos.

The Case Database 42 further includes a history of the dialoguegenerated between the Users 12-14 associated with the case and the LPM18. That history includes queries and deadlines generated by the LPM 18together with time-stamped answers provided to the LPM Calendar 16 bythe Users 12-14 in response to the queries. That history preferablyfurther includes time-stamped text commentary provided by the Users12-14, if any, that were not responsive to a query from the LPM 18. Thathistory further includes exception reports provided by the LPM 18containing information on occurrences when a User 12-14 has failed tocomply with a requirement (e.g., failed to meet a deadline).

The LPM Calendar preferably may handle multiple cases simultaneously(Case 1, Case 2, . . . Case N). Likewise, the LPM Calendar 16 can handlemultiple Users 12-14 per case (Case 1 [User A, User B, . . . ]; Case 2[User G, User H, . . . ]). Each query stored in the LPM Calendar ispreferably associated with a Case, a User, and a deadline: Query (Case,User, Deadline). Likewise, each submission of update informationsubmitted by a User 12-14 into the LPM Calendar 16 is associated with aCase, a User, and a timestamp: Update (Case, User, Time). An update by aUser 12-14 responsive to a query is further associated with that queryand, optionally, its deadline: Update (Case, User, Time, Query,Deadline).

Preferably, the historical information in a case and the text of storeddocuments may be searched for a particular text string via aconventional search query based search engine. Through the correlationsbuilt into the Case Database 42, the LPM Calendar 16 may selectivelyretrieve historical information from a case based on User, query, timewindow, or any combination thereof. Preferably, the historicalinformation in a case and stored documents within Case Database 42 arefurther associated with identifiers of which Users 12-14 haveauthorization to view or download the information or documents.Attorneys 14 have authorization to view information associated withContractors 13 working on the same Case. This sharing of informationhelps the Attorney 14 obtain up-to-date information when carrying on thelegal action.

Referring to FIG. 2, in a preferred embodiment the User Database 44includes information specific to each User 12-14 who is authorized touse LPM Calendar 16. This information includes contact information,preferably including one or more email addresses. Generally, an initialprocedure is used to register a User 12-14. The registration processprovides the User 12-14 with a username and password that allows theUser to access the nonpublic portions of the LPM Calendar web site. TheUser Database 44 further includes a pointer to each Case within the CaseDatabase 42 for which the User is associated. The User Database 44further indicates the status of each User (attorney-type 1,attorney-type 2, . . . , contractor-type 1, contractor-type 2, . . . ).The User Database 44 further indicates the permission of the User 12-14to access information stored in connection with information anddocuments stored in the Case Database 42.

Preferably, the User Database 44 further includes “preferences”associated with each User. Examples of preferences include: the amountof “heads-up” time to use before transmitting a “tickler” notice to aUser 12-14 about an upcoming deadline; the amount of time to wait beforetransmitting a reminder notice to a User about a missed deadline; otherrecipients to use for reminder notices (e.g., the User's superior).Preferences may optionally be set by the User 12-14, by the Client 12,or by defaults stored within the LPM Calendar 16.

The Pending Query Database 46 includes “pending” queries that have beenreceived by the LPM Calendar System 16 from the LPM 18. A pending queryis the next query in the legal process that calls for a response. Eachpending query has an associated deadline, and is further associated witha particular Case and one or more particular Users 12-14 from that Case:Query (Deadline, Case, User).

The Upload Database 48 includes information submitted by a User to theLPM Calendar System 16 that has not yet been uploaded to the LPM 18. Theinformation includes responses to queries. Each response has anassociated timestamp, and is further associated with a particular Case,the submitting User 12-14, and the query to which it responds: Response(Timestamp, Case, User, Query). The information stored within the UploadDatabase 48 further includes information submitted by Users 12-14 thatis not responsive to queries. Such information has an associatedtimestamp, and is also associated with a particular Case and thesubmitting User 12-14: Information (Timestamp, Case, User).

It is to be understood that the database set 40 may be configured in anynumber of ways as one or more logical descriptors that may include, butare not limited to, databases, tables, views, constraints, processes,procedures, datasets, recordsets, and metadata. The databases 42, 44,46, 48 are interconnected with each other and with the modules 31-38 soas to allow the storage, transferal, and processing of information asneeded to perform the processes described herein. Furthermore, it isunderstood that the associations between the various types ofinformation in the databases as described above may be provided throughpointers or any other means.

The functionality associated with the modules of the module set 30 willnow be described.

Referring to FIG. 2, the Calendar Interface Module 31 generates webpages for Users 12-14 navigating the LPM Calendar System 16. Asdiscussed below, the Calendar Interface Module 31 displays in real-timethe tasks currently expected of the Users 12-14 within an expected daterange (e.g., weekly, bi-monthly, etc.).

The Update Module 32 stores information submitted to the LPM Calendarweb site by a User 12-14 in connection with a particular Case into thehistorical information for that Case within the Case Database 42. TheUpdate Module 32 also stores the information in the Upload Database 48for subsequent uploading to the LPM 18. When the information issubmitted by a User 12-14 in response to a pending query, the UpdateModule 32 also clears the pending query from the Pending Query Database46.

The LP OUT Module 33 uploads information stored in the Upload Database48 to the LPM 18. The LP OUT Module preferably uploads informationperiodically. The periodicity is a design choice that can be set to bedaily, bi-daily, weekly, etc. Alternatively, the timing of an upload maybe set to occur more frequently based on the amount of information inthe Upload Database 48 awaiting uploading. To upload the information,the LP OUT Module 33 converts the information in the Upload Database 48into a format suitable for the communication protocol used. Ifconventional electronic mail is used, the LP OUT Module 33 automaticallygenerates and transmits to the LPM 18 one or more electronic mailmessages containing the information from the Upload Database 48.

The LP IN Module 34 downloads new queries from the LPM 18 to the PendingQuery Database 46. The LP IN Module may download informationperiodically from the LPM 18. Alternatively, the timing may becontrolled by the LPM 18. Preferably, the LPM 18 transmits electronicmail messages to the LP Calendar System 16. The LP IN Module 33 receivesthe electronic mail messages, extracts the text information from thebodies of the messages, converts the information into a format suitablefor storage in the Pending Query Database 46, and then stores theinformation accordingly.

The Exception Module 35 includes a real-time clock (including both dateand time information). The Exception Module 35 compares its clock outputto the deadlines of each of the pending queries in the Pending QueriesDatabase 46 in order to discover “exceptions.” As used herein, the term“exception” generally refers to any query that is or was (1) notresponded to by the User before the specified deadline; or (2) remainsactive past the deadline. This type of exception may be detected bycomparing the timing of the response of a User 12-14 to the deadline ofthe associated query.

An example of a type (1) exception: A User 12-14 is requested to file awrit by July 1. The writ is not filed until July 15, as indicated by amessage submitted by the User 12-14. The writ file is an “exception.”This type of exception may be detected by comparing the date within thesubstance of the response of the User 12-14 to the deadline of theassociated query. Alternatively, this type of exception may be detectedby receiving an exception report from the LPM 18 containing the detailsof the exception.

An example of a type (2) exception: A User is requested to file a writby July 1. It is now July 2 and the writ has not been filed. Thisnon-filed writ is an “exception.” This type of exception may be detectedby comparing the timing of the response of the User 12-14 to thedeadline of the associated query.

Optionally, the system may define non-time based exceptions based on afailure to meet any requirement placed upon a User. For example, if aUser agrees to charge a flat fee of $25.00 for a particular service, butultimately submits an invoice for $75.00 for his services, the ExceptionModule 35 would detect the submission of the invoice as an “exception.”

The Exception Module 35 further provides one or more “enforcement”procedures triggered by the existence of (or anticipation of) anexception. The details of the enforcement procedure may take on manyforms. One example is the transmission of a reminder email to the User12-14 who needs to take action. A reminder email may be sent as adeadline is being approached (to avoid a missed deadline) or after adeadline has been missed. The enforcement procedure may include sendingan email to the Client 12. The enforcement procedure may further includethe placing of a telephone call to a superior of the User 12-14.Optionally, records of past performance stored in the Case Database 42for a particular User 12-14 may be used to identify the amount ofsupervision (i.e. the number and timing of reminders) needed on auser-by-user basis.

The enforcement procedure of the Exception Module 34 may include anescalating pattern of enforcement. For example, a reminder email may besent to a User 12-14 just prior to a deadline. A stronger reminder emailmay be transmitted to the User 12-14 on the deadline date. An evenstronger reminder email may be transmitted to the User 12-14 two daysafter the deadline. If the exception is not remedied within a week ofthe deadline, a warning email may be sent to the superior of the User12-14.

The Notification Module 36 allows for notifications to be automaticallytransmitted, preferably via email, to the Client 12, Users 12-14 andthird parties as needed. The recipients of notifications are stored foreach User 12-14 as preferences in the User Database 44. Notificationsmay be transmitted when an update of a “special” nature occurs (such asexceptions), or when any other information needs to be transmitted amongthe appropriate parties. For example, notifications may be sent to aUser 12-14 when an impending deadline is approaching.

The Billing Module 37 is an optional module that manages the billingprocedure based on User 12-14 preferences (stored in the User Database44), including but not limited to (1) triggering the Notification Module36 to transmit requests for invoices to Users 12-14; (2) receivinginvoices submitted by Users 12-14 online; (3) triggering theNotification Module 36 to electronically submit an invoice to a User12-14; and (4) receiving from the Exception Module 35 exceptionsassociated with invoice submissions and payments.

The Referral Module 38 is an optional module that receives referrals andsupporting documentation at the beginning of a case. The Referral Module38 automatically transmits the referrals and the supportingdocumentation to the appropriate Users 12-14 and third parties incidentto the legal process. Preferably, the Referral Module 38 also monitorsthe receipt of the referrals by the intended recipients.

FIG. 3 illustrates an arrangement wherein the LPM Calendar System 16 isused with multiple LPMs 18A, 18B, 18C. As shown, there may be distinctLPMs for post-foreclosure evictions (18A), for landlord-tenant evictions(18B), for replevin actions (18C), and so on. These LPMs 18A, B, C . . .may be located in different physical locations, may be controlled by (orcomprise) different third parties, and may employ completely differenttechniques for generating queries. The LPM Calendar System 16 mayinteract with each LPM independently of the others.

Visiting the LPM Calendar System Web Site

The use of the LPM Calendar System 16 will now be described in thecontext of a web site designed for use by Attorneys 14 and real-estateBrokers 13 who participate in the post-foreclosure eviction process. Inparticular, the Attorney 14 handles the legal aspects of the evictionthrough the Court system while the Broker 13 handles the tasksassociated with the foreclosed property itself. The use of thepost-foreclosure eviction process in the following description isexemplary only.

FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary sequence of blocks that are performed bythe LPM Calendar System 16 when a new Case is started. In Block 50, theLPM Calendar System 16 receives the initial data for the Case. Theinitial data will include the identities and contact information(including information to enable communication via communication network20) for the Client 12, any information available on opposing parties andthird parties, and any pleadings or other initial documentation. Theinitial data may also include the identities and contact information forone or more LPMs (including information to enable communication viacommunication network 20). For Clients 12 and LPMs who are new to thesystem, the LPM Calendar System 16 generates security information (e.g.,usernames and passwords) to permit secure communications.

In Block 52, the LPM Calendar System 16 receives from the LPM 18 aninitial query (with deadline, if appropriate) one or more of the Users12-14 for the new Case. The LPM generates the initial query from theinitial Case data. If necessary, the LPM Calendar System 16 can uploadthe initial Case data to the LPM 18 for use in generating the initialquery (not shown in FIG. 4). In (optional) Block 54, the Referral Module38 of the LPM Calendar System 16 receives the referral data for theCase. This includes receiving confirmations from one or more Attorneys14 and, possibly, one or more Contractors 13, who have agreed to work onthe Case. Blocks 52 and 54 can occur in either order, depending onsystem configuration or preferences. For retained Attorneys 14 andContractors 13 who are new to the system, the LPM Calendar System 16generates security information (e.g., usernames and passwords) to permitsecure communications.

In Block 56, the new Case data is used to update the contents of theUser Database 44. This may include the creation of entries for newUsers, or, if the User(s) associated with the new Case are all alreadyregistered with the LPM Calendar System 16, the creation of new Caseentries for the existing User(s). In Block 57, the new Case data is usedto update the contents of the Case Database 42. This involves thecreation of an entry for the new Case, with pointers to the UserDatabase 44 for each User associated with the new Case. Blocks 56 and 57can occur in either order. In Block 58, the LP In Module 34 stores theinitial quer(ies) received in Block 52 in the Pending Query Database 58in association with the associated User(s) 12-14.

FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary sequence of blocks that are performed bythe LPM Calendar System 16 when a User 12-14 visits the associated website. In Block 60, the LPM Calendar System 16 receives a login requestfrom a User 12-14 seeking to access the web site via the Internet 20.For this purpose, the Calendar Interface Module 31 provides a web pagewith a security feature. For example, the web page may include a fieldfor entering a username and a field for entering a password, as is wellknown in the art.

In Block 62 of FIG. 3, the LPM Calendar 30 verifies the identity of theUser 12-14 using techniques well known in the art. Preferably, usernameand password information provided by the User 12-14 through the web pagegenerated by the Calendar Interface 31 are compared to correlatedusername and password information stored in the User Database 44. Asshown in Block 64, the LPM Calendar System 16 responds to a successfullogin by the User 12-14 by displaying a General Case Information webpage. The Calendar Interface 31 generates the General Case Informationweb page by retrieving case information from the Case Database 42 thatis associated with the User 12-14 identified through the login process.

FIG. 6A illustrates a sample General Case Information web page 80Agenerated for an Attorney 14 in accordance with one embodiment. In thisembodiment, the General Case Information web page 80 includes a CalendarSection 82A that provides information for each active case associatedwith the Attorney 14. The Calendar Interface Module 31 identifies andcopies the appropriate information from the Case Database 42 through theinformation's association with Attorney 14. This information includes acase reference number, the name of the former owner of the foreclosedproperty, the eviction status of the property, and a description of anyupdates expected from the Attorney 14.

The updates shown on the web page 80A comprise the query with the mostimminent deadline submitted by the associated LPM 18 for each Case. Forexample, FIG. 6A shows three post-foreclosure cases at different stages.Case TESTCA001 is at the “eviction, start” phase, and the pending queryfor the Attorney 14 is “Title docs received?” For Case TESTCA002, thecase is having “problems,” and the next query is “Motion filed?” ForCase TESTCA003, the eviction status is “eviction, judgment obtained,”and the pending query is “Appeal filed?” Each time an Attorney 14 visitsthe General Information web page 80A he or she will see differentinformation portrayed, depending upon what has transpired since the lastvisit to the page.

The General Case Information web page 80A further includes three links:an Active Case Summary link 84A, a Closed Case Summary link 86A, and aThis Week's Schedule link 88A. Selecting the Active Case Summary link84A redirects the Attorney 14 to a web page that displays a summary ofthe attorney's active cases. Selecting the Closed Case Summary link 86Aredirects the Attorney 14 to a web page that displays a summary of theattorney's closed cases. Selecting This Week's Schedule link 88Aredirects the Attorney 14 to a web page that displays an Active Calendarweb page. (see FIG. 5, Block 66A).

FIG. 6B illustrates a sample General Case Information web page 80Bgenerated for a Broker 13 in accordance with one embodiment. In thisembodiment, the General Case Information web page 80B includes aCalendar Section 82B that provides information for each active caseassociated with the Broker 13. The Calendar Interface Module 31identifies and copies the appropriate information from the Case Database42 through the information's association with Broker 13. In theembodiment of FIG. 6B, this information includes a case referencenumber, the name of the former owner of the foreclosed property, theeviction status of the property, and a description of occupancy statusreports expected in the near future from the Broker 13.

In one embodiment, related links may be placed into a case summarysection or display. For example, the General Case Information web page80B includes three links: an Active Case Summary link 84B, a Closed CaseSummary link 86B, and an Occupancy Status Needed link 88B. Selecting theActive Case Summary link 84B redirects the Broker 13 to a web page thatdisplays a summary of the broker's active cases. Selecting the ClosedCase Summary link 86B redirects the Broker 13 to a web page thatdisplays a summary of the broker's closed cases. Selecting OccupancyStatus Needed link 88B redirects the Broker 13 to a web page thatdisplays an Active Calendar web page (see FIG. 5, Block 66B).

Comparison of FIGS. 6A and 6B reveals that important informationassociated with a Case is provided to the Attorneys 14 and Contractors13 working on the same Case. This sharing of information helps avoid thesituation where the Attorney 14 delays carrying out a task because he isunnecessarily waiting for the Contractor 13 to complete a task that hasin fact been completed, for example, determining whether the occupant ofa foreclosed property is an owner or tenant. The sharing of informationprovided by the LPM Calendar System 16 eliminates delay caused byproceeding with the incorrect type of eviction process, thus saving theClient 12 money.

As shown in Block 68 of FIG. 5, the LPM Calendar System 16 responds tothe request from a User 12-14 in Block 66 by displaying an ActiveCalendar web page. The Active Calendar web page displays to User the“active” queries associated with the Cases of the user 12-14. In thecontext of the illustrated embodiment, an “active” query is a pendingquery with a sufficiently close deadline. The time period to use for“sufficiently close” is a matter of design, and may optionally vary withUser 12-14 and may also optionally vary with the nature of the query.For example, the Attorneys 14 may be provided a two-week window ofactive queries while the Contractors 13 may be provided a one-monthwindow of active queries. In one embodiment, queries associated withtime-consuming tasks are associated with a longer lead-time to triggeractive status than queries associated with simple tasks.

Exemplary Active Calendar web pages will now be described for a visitingAttorney 14 and Broker 13. FIG. 7 illustrates an Active Calendar webpage 90 generated by the LPM Calendar Interface Module 31 for anAttorney 14. In this embodiment, the Attorney's Active Calendar web page90 includes a list of all cases with “active queries.” As used herein,an active query is a prompt requiring a response from the Attorney 14within a relative short time frame (as discussed in greater detailbelow). In this example, a one-week period is used to determine activequeries. Only queries for the Attorney 14 with deadlines falling withinthe next week appear on the Active Calendar web page 90. Referring toFIG. 7, the web page displays the queries (with associated deadlines)91, and provides an interface 92 for submitting responses. The web pageincludes an Update field 93 that allows the Attorney 14 to enter a textstring responsive to the corresponding query, and an Update button 94that allows the Attorney 14 to submit the response.

When the Attorney 14 clicks the Update button 94, the Update Module 32stores the text string from the Update field 93 into the Case Database42, stores the text string into the Upload Database 48 (for uploading tothe LPM 18), removes the Attorney's active query from the Pending QueryDatabase 46, and emails that response to the LPM 18. This is illustratedin FIG. 5 at Block 70.

FIG. 8 illustrates an Active Calendar web page 98 generated by the LPMCalendar Interface Module 31 for a Broker 13. In this embodiment, theBroker's Active Calendar web page 100 includes a list of all cases withactive queries. Comparing FIG. 7 with FIG. 8 reveals that in thisembodiment the Active Calendar web page of the Broker 13 differs fromthat of the Attorney 14. While the Attorney's active query varies withthe circumstances, the Broker's active query is the same each time: arequest for an update in the occupancy status of the foreclosedproperty. In this embodiment, the Broker's Active Calendar web page 98includes an Update link 99 that allows the Broker to provide informationon the occupancy status of the foreclosed property. Like with theAttorney's Active Calendar web page, the Broker's web page only providesqueries (i.e. requests for occupancy updates) for “active” queries. Inthis example, a two-week period is used to determine active queries forthe Broker 13. Only occupancy updates requested within the next twoweeks appear on the Broker's Active Calendar web page 100.

FIG. 9 illustrates an Occupancy Update web page 100 presented to theBroker 13 upon selecting the Update link 99 within the Active Calendarweb page 98 of FIG. 8. The Occupancy Update web page 100 allows theBroker 13 to submit occupancy information by selecting from an OccupancyStatus menu 102 with a limited number of selections. In this embodiment,the Broker's web page also includes a Date field 104 that allows theBroker 13 to enter the date of last visit to the property. In thisembodiment, the Broker's web page also includes a Comments field 106that allows the Broker 13 to enter a text string, and an Update button108 that allows the Broker 13 to submit the responses.

When the Broker 13 clicks the Update button 108, the Update Module 32stores the submitted information from the Occupancy Status menu 102, theDate field 104, and the Comments field 106 into the Case Database 42,stores the same information into the Upload Database 48 (for uploadingto the LPM 18), removes the Broker's active query from the Pending QueryDatabase 46, and emails either the LPM or the Client, depending onClient 12 preference. The occupancy information submitted by the Broker13 (and stored in the Case Database 42) becomes viewable by theAttorneys 14 working on the same case during their next visit to the LPMCalendar System 16 web site.

FIG. 10 illustrates the sequence of blocks that are performed by theCalendar Interface Module 31 when an Attorney 14 enters information viathe Active Calendar web page 90 in response to an active query. In Block110, the Calendar Interface Module 31 generates an Active Calendar webpage containing an update field (element 93) for each case having anactive query. In Block 112, the LPM Calendar 30 receives an informationupdate from the Attorney 14 for one of the cases with an active query(“Case i”), in the manner discussed above. In Block 114, the UpdateModule 32 stores the information in the Upload Database 48 and CaseDatabase 42, as discussed above. In Block 116, the Update Module removesthe active query for Case i from the Pending Query Database 46, asdiscussed above and also emails the response to the LPM. Following thecompletion of Block 116, control is passed back to Block 110, where theCalendar Interface Module 31 regenerates the Active Calendar web page 90without the Case i entry (which is no longer active). At this point theAttorney 14 is in a position to enter another information update for anyremaining active cases.

Furthermore, one embodiment allows for reporting of particular milestoneevents (“Special Updates”). For example, the filing of a bankruptcyduring a post-foreclosure eviction invokes an automatic stay, whichmakes any further legal process and/or contact with the Borrowerillegal. Acts taken in violation of the automatic stay can subject theforeclosing lender to legal liability. Hence, it is important for theBroker to be advised of the Bankruptcy filing so as to avoid the Brokercontacting the occupant in violation of the automatic stay. Likewise, itis important that the eviction attorney be advised to cease all legalprocess until either the Bankruptcy is dismissed or an Order GrantingRelief from Stay is entered, which allows the eviction to proceed.Moreover, it is also important that the LPM 18 be advised or updatedsuch that the Relief from Stay Motion can be filed, which will allow thepost-foreclosure eviction to continue.

In one embodiment, Special Updates are entered in such a way to providethe proper notice to the proper parties. Referring back to FIG. 7, theAttorney's Active Calendar web page 90 includes two Special Updatefeatures: a Report a Lockout link 95 and a Report a Bankruptcy link 96.These “special” links provide a simple mechanism for the Attorney 14 tosubmit information that is of particular importance to the legal process(in the present example, information that is of particular importance topost-foreclosure evictions). Selecting either of these links redirectsthe Attorney 14 to a Special Update web page within which the attorneycan submit the appropriate information. In other embodiments, othertypes of milestone events may be used depending on the type ofenforcement action involved. In yet other embodiments, the LPM 18 maydetermine which types of milestone events are accorded Special Updatestatus.

FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary Special Update web page 140 generatedfor a visiting Attorney 14. The example in FIG. 12 illustrates a webpage generated by the Calendar Interface Module 31 in response to theAttorney 14 selecting the Report a Lockout link 95 from the ActiveCalendar web page 90. In this embodiment, the Special Update web page140 provides a Special Report field 142 within which the Attorney 14 maytype the relevant information. The Special Update web page 140 furtherprovides guidance for the attorney as to what information to enter. Theattorney is instructed to “Please include: (1) date and time of lockout, (2) size of crew needed (if any), and (3) the Deputy or Sheriff'sname and phone number (if needed).” The Special Update web page 140further provides a Report button 144 for submitting the report onceentered into the Special Report field 142.

When the Attorney 14 clicks the Special Report button 144, the UpdateModule 32 stores the text string from the Update field 93 into the CaseDatabase 42 and stores the text string into the Upload Database 48,while emailing the Broker 13, the LPM 18 and the Client 12 with theinformation. Although not depicted, the Report a Bankruptcy link 96generates a web page for receiving reports analogous to the SpecialUpdate web page 140 illustrated in FIG. 12. In the case of a Bankruptcynotice, this feature alerts the Broker to the existence of theBankruptcy and instructs the Broker not to contact the Occupant untilthe Relief from Stay order is effective.

FIG. 11 illustrates the sequence of blocks that are performed by the LPMCalendar 16 when an Attorney 14 uses the Special Update web page 140. InBlock 130 of FIG. 6B, the Calendar Interface 31 receives a request for aspecial update in response to the Attorney 14 selecting either theReport a Lockout link 95 or Report a Bankruptcy link 96 on the ActiveCalendar web page 90. In Block 132, the Calendar Interface Module 31generates a Special Update page as discussed above. In Block 134, theUpdate Module 32 stores the information in the Upload Database 48 (foruploading to the LPM 18) and in the Case Database 42. In Block 136, theUpdate Module 32 stores the special update in the Case Database 142where it becomes accessible to the Users 12-14 defined by thepreferences set for the Case. In Block 138, the Notification Module 33sends out notifications in compliance with the preferences stored in theUser Database 44 for the appropriate Users 12-14 in the case. Followingcompletion of Block 138, the Calendar Interface Module 31 regeneratesthe Active Calendar web page 90 (not shown in FIG. 11). At this pointthe Attorney 14 is in a position to enter another information update forany remaining active cases.

The preferred embodiments discussed above include examples of web sites.It is understood that other embodiments could utilize other types ofinteractive, multi-user systems, including but not limited totelephone-based systems in which users listen to queries and thenrespond by voice or by using a telephone key pad. Both web and telephoneinterfaces may be provided. In web-based embodiments, it is understoodthat various combinations of text fields, check boxes, drop-down menus,and other well-known interface tools may be provided to users for thepurpose of receiving information. The preferred embodiments discussedabove discuss using electronic mail messages to send notifications. Itis understood that other embodiments could utilize other types ofmessage systems, including but not limited to a pager and a telephonecall with a computer generated message.

The Automated Dialog

As discussed above, the LPM 18 manages and monitors Users 12-14 throughan automated dynamic dialog facilitated by the Calendar System 16. FIG.13 illustrates an example dialog between the LPM 18 and an Attorney 14being managed via the LPM Calendar System 16. The communication labeledA represents a Query (with an associated deadline, if appropriate)received by the LPM Calendar System 16 from the LPM 18 via an automatedcommunication protocol. The communication labeled B represents atransmission of the Query by the LPM Calendar System 16 to the Attorney14 upon his visiting the LPM Calendar 16 web site. The communicationlabeled C represents a Response (with an associated date and time stamp,if appropriate) transmitted by the Attorney 14 to the LPM CalendarSystem 16 through the web page interfaces discussed above. Thecommunication labeled D represents an automated transmission of theResponse from the LPM Calendar 16 web site to the LPM 18. Thetransmissions A through D comprise one iteration of the dialog. Thesecond iteration follows the pattern of the first. Namely, the LPMCalendar System 16 receives a “follow up” Query (with associateddeadline, if appropriate) from the LPM 18, as shown by the communicationlabeled E. As with the first iteration, the LPM Calendar System 16 thentransmits the new Query to the Attorney 14 upon his visitation to theweb site, as shown in the communication labeled F. The exchangesillustrated in FIG. 13 continue as needed throughout the legal processof interest.

Two sample dialogs facilitated by the LPM Calendar System 16 are shownbelow. The sample dialogs come from post-foreclosure evictions inFlorida. Messages received by the LPM Calendar System 16 from the LPM 18are labeled “LPME.” Messages received by the LPM Calendar System 16 fromthe Attorney 14 are labeled “Attorney.”

Example 1 - Simple Florida Eviction Source Send Date Queries andResponses Deadline LPME June 27 “Title docs received? Writ app out?”July 2 Attorney June 30 “Title docs received 6/30; Writ expected out7/02” LPME July 1 “Writ issued?” July 2 Attorney July 2 “Writ out 7/02,awaiting issuance and Lock Out” LPME June 3 “Writ issued? Lockoutcompleted?” July 10 Attorney July 9 “Lock Out completed 7/08”

Example 2 - Florida Eviction With a Title Problem Source Send DateQueries and Responses Deadline LPME June 27 “Title docs received? Writapp out?” July 2 Attorney June 30 “Title problems discovered; address onCT is incorrect; motion is required to correct error prior to evictionproceeding” LPME July 1 “Motion filed?” July 7 Attorney July 10 “Motionfiled 7/09; hearing date is 8/06” LPME July 11 “Results of 8/06 hearing”August 7 Attorney August 8 “Motion granted. New CT issued 8/08. New writto be out by 8/12” LPME August 8 “Writ issued?” August 13 AttorneyAugust 12 “Writ out 8/11, awaiting Lock Out” LPME August 13 “Writissued? Lock Out completed?” August 20 Attorney August 22 “Rural area.Sheriff is slow to proceed with Lock Out. Investigating status of lockout, will report status by 8/26” LPME August 22 “If lock out notcompleted, August 30 please advise as to reasons Sheriff has given andSheriff contact name and number” Attorney August 27 “Lock Out completed8/26”

The above examples demonstrate the dynamic nature of the dialog allowedby the LPM Calendar System 16. The LPM 18 in the second example had theflexibility to vary from the expected line of queries (as depicted inExample 1) in order to address the unanticipated problem that wasencountered. Rather than providing the query “Writ issued?” which mayhave been generated by a static legal process management system, the LPM18 in the second example customized the query to fit the circumstances:“Motion filed?” This provides proper guidance for the Attorney 14, andavoids the problem of the attorney appearing to be out of compliancewhen he or she is not.

In Example 2 above, the LPM Calendar System 16 received a query on July11 with a deadline of August 8. Because of the relatively long timeavailable before the deadline, it is advantageous to distinguish thisquery from other queries with closer deadlines that may be provided tothe same Attorney 14 in connection with the same or other cases.Accordingly, in one embodiment the LPM Calendar System 16 distinguishesbetween “active” queries (with short deadlines) and “non-active” queries(with longer deadlines).

FIG. 14 illustrates blocks performed by the LPM Calendar System 16 whena User 12-14 accesses the Active Calendar web page (see FIGS. 7 and 8).In Block 180, the User 12-14 selects an appropriate link within the website. In Block 182, the Calendar Interface Module 31 retrieves thepending queries for the User 12-14 from the Pending Query Database 46.In Block 184, the Calendar Interface Module 31 selects one of thepending queries. In Block 186, the Calendar Interface Module 31 comparesthe time remaining for completing the pending query before itsassociated deadline with a time, T₁. The time variable T₁ may be set atwhatever time frame is deemed proper for the legal process at interest.In one embodiment T₁ is set at one week for all Attorneys 14 and twoweeks for all Contractors 13. In another embodiment, the time variableT₁ may be adjusted for different Users 12-14 based on their pastperformance or for other reasons. For example, Users 12-14 with ahistory of missing deadlines may be given a longer variable T₁,lengthening the window in which a query appears as “active” and givingthe User 12-14 greater time for response. In another embodiment, thevariable T₁ varies with the nature of the query, such that moredemanding queries are associated with larger T₁ values.

As shown in Block 188 in FIG. 14, queries with deadlines closer in timethan the variable T₁ are treated as active. Accordingly, those queriesare displayed on the User's Active Calendar web page. In Block 190, theCalendar Interface Module 31 optionally makes a second comparison with asecond time variable T₂. As shown in Block 192, in this embodimentqueries with deadlines falling in the window between T₁ and T₂ aretreated as pending “non-active” queries. These queries are not displayedon the User's Active Calendar, but may be accessed by viewing a web pagethat shows both active and non-active queries. For queries withdeadlines farther off in the future than T₁, the query is not treated asactive or non-active, and is not viewable by the User 12-14. In Block194, control is passed back to Block 184, where the analysis is repeatedfor another pending query. In this manner, the LPM Calendar System 16can generate an Active Calendar web page displaying only the activequeries for the User 12-14.

In one embodiment, T₂ is set at two weeks for all Attorneys 14 and fourweeks for all Contractors 13. In another embodiment, the second variableT₂ and Block 190 are not utilized. Rather, all pending queries that arenot “active” are deemed “non-active” and are viewable on a web page thatshows both active and non-active queries.

FIG. 15 illustrates blocks performed by the LPM Calendar System 16 whenfacilitating an automated dialog between the LPM 18 and a User 12-14. InBlock 200, the LPM Calendar System 16 receives a query (and associateddeadline, if appropriate) from the LPM 18 and stores it as discussedabove. In Block 202, the Calendar Interface Module 31 assesses whetherthe query is active or non-active, as discussed above in connection withFIG. 14. As shown in FIG. 15, active queries are displayed on the ActiveCalendar web page (Block 204) while non-active queries are displayed ona web page that includes both active and non-active queries (or,optionally, just non-active queries) (Block 206).

In Block 208, the LPM Calendar System 16 receives a response to thequery from the User 12-14 as discussed above. While not depicted, thisquery is then removed from the active calendar and emailed to the LPM18. In Block 210, the LPM Calendar System 16 uses an automated protocolto transmit the response to the LPM 18. Following the completion ofBlock 210, control is passed back to a waiting state until Block 200 isrepeated with a follow up query.

Because of the importance of time, it is advantageous to have proceduresin place for reminders and enforcement procedures for Users 12-14 whofail to comply with the deadlines of their queries. Referring to Example2, the LPM 18 issued a query on July 1 asking for the filing of a motionwith a deadline of July 7. As shown in the example, the Attorney 14 didnot respond until July 10, when he informed the LPM 18 that a motion wasfiled on July 9. Because the Attorney 14 did not respond until afterJuly 7, the LPM Calendar System 16 generates an exception report (i.e. arecord of a missed reporting deadline). Because the motion wasultimately filed on July 9, also after the deadline, the LPM CalendarSystem 16 may receive a second exception report from the LPM 18 (i.e. arecord of a missed performance deadline). With the July 7 deadlinenearing, the LPM Calendar System 16 may send out a “tickler” e-mail tothe Attorney 14 to remind him of the impending deadline. The processesfor generating exceptions and reminders are discussed below.

FIG. 16 shows blocks performed by the Exception Module 35 of the LPMCalendar System 16 to provide reminders and enforcement procedures forUsers 12-14 who fail to comply with their pending queries and deadlines.In Block 220, the Exception Module 35 retrieves the pending queries forthe User 12-14 from the Pending Query Database 46 and selects one. InBlock 222, the Exception Module 35 compares the deadline of the query tothe internal clock of the LPM Calendar System 16. If the deadline is inthe past, in Block 224 the Exception Module 35 activates enforcementprocedures, as discussed above. These may include automated e-mails tothe User 12-14 and the User's superior(s).

In Block 224, the Exception Module 35 also stores a record of theexception (i.e. the failure to comply with the deadline). The exceptionrecord data includes the Case, the User 12-14, the query, and thedeadline. When (if ever) the query is later answered, the date (and,optionally, time) of the (untimely) response is also stored with theexception record data. In one embodiment, the LPM Calendar System 16distinguishes between reporting exceptions and performance exceptions. Areporting exception is the reporting of an act after the deadline(whether or not the act itself was performed late). A performanceexception is the reporting of an act as occurring after a deadline.

If the deadline for the query is not in the past, in Block 226 theException Module 35 compares the time remaining before the querydeadline with a time variable T₃. As shown in Block 228, if the timeremaining is less than T₃, the Exception Module 35 actives reminder (or“tickler”) procedures, as discussed above. These may include automatedemails to the User 12-14 and the User's superior(s). The time selectedfor T₃ may be constant for all Users 12-14, or it may be adjusted fordifferent Users 12-14 based on their past performance or for otherreasons. In one embodiment, T₃ is set for two days. In anotherembodiment, Users 12-14 with a history of missing deadlines are given alonger variable T₃, lengthening prompting an earlier warning message(e.g. a tickler email) thus providing the User 12-14 with more time forresponse. The variable T₃ may also vary with the nature of the query,such that more demanding queries are associated with larger T₃ values.

Compiling Compliance Data

As discussed above in connection with FIG. 16, the LPM Calendar System16 maintains a record of each instance for each exception (e.g. eachfailure to comply with a deadline) triggered by a User 12-14.

Clients 12 may also be using the LPM Calendar System 16 with hundreds ofContractors 13. The LPM Calendar System 16 allows the Client 12 toaccess the exception data records for the Contractors 13 working oncases for the Client 12. The exception records are maintained over timeso that a Client 12 may view the history of exceptions for all of theContractors 13 who have ever worked on their cases. In one embodiment,the Client 12 may view the history of exceptions for all Contractors 13whether or not they worked on the Client's cases. Using well-knownstatistical techniques applied to the exception record data, Clients 12can compare Contractors 13 on the basis of the time frequency ofexceptions, the average lateness of exceptions (e.g., how many dayslate), and the frequency that different queries result in exceptions.

A Client 12 may utilize the historical data generated by the EBMS toguide their future hiring decisions for Attorneys 14 and Contractors 13.In addition to using the historical data to assess Attorneys 14 andContractors 13, the Client 12 may also use the historical data to assessthe queries themselves. As discussed above, the queries used by the LPM18 are customarily influenced by the preferences of the Client 12. Uponreviewing the historical data generated by the LPM Calendar System 16, aClient 12 may discover a systematic trend that Attorneys 14 consistentlytrigger exceptions in response to a completion time for a randomfrequency event. One explanation for such a result may be that thedeadline associated for completion of that event is unrealistic.Accordingly, the Client 12 may consider lengthening the deadline tobetter fit the realities of the process. In this manner, the historicalexception data provides a feedback mechanism whereby Clients 12 mayfine-tune and improve the management process over time. For example, theClient 12 may discover from the statistical data that total SIEA,milestone or event completion times should be lengthened during certaintimes of year (e.g. during the December holiday season).

Alternative LPM System

FIG. 17 illustrates a LPM System 250 according to another embodiment.Similar to the LPM Calendar System 16 depicted in FIG. 2, the LPM System250 includes the web server 25 in communication with the Internet 20. Asshown in FIG. 17, Clients 12, Contractors 13, and Attorneys 14 mayaccess the LPM System 250 via the Internet 20 through one or more of theuser devices 12A, 13A, or 14A. It is to be understood that the webserver 25 may be distributed over one or more physical machinesnetworked in a variety of configurations. In addition, other suitablecommunication networks may be used in combination with, or in place of,the Internet 20. For example, in other embodiments, local area networks(LANs) and/or wide area networks (WANs) may be used.

FIG. 17 further illustrates the LPM System 250 including the module set30, the database set 40, a second module set 30′, and a second databaseset 40′ in communication with each other and with the web server 25. Theillustrated second module set 30′ includes a Timeline Module 252, anOffer Module 254, a Grading Module 256, and a Related Records Module258. The modules 252, 254, 256, and 258 of the second module set 30′ areeach in communication with each other, the module set 30, the databaseset 40, the second database set 40′, and the web server 25. The modules252, 254, 256, and 258 provide functionality preferably implemented viacomputer software and/or hardware. A description of the functionsprovided by each of the modules 252, 254, 256, and 258 is provided belowfollowing a description of the second database set 40′.

In other embodiments, the second module set 30′ includes fewer modulesthan those depicted in FIG. 17. For example, the second module set 30′may function without the Grading Module 256. In yet other embodiments,other modules may be used that work in combination with, or in place of,one or more of the modules 252, 254, 256, and 258. Furthermore, in otherembodiments the LPM System 250 may function without one or more modulesof the 31-38 of the module set 30 illustrated in FIG. 2. The illustratedsecond database set 40′ includes an Offer Database 260 and a PerformanceDatabase 262. The databases 260 and 262 of the second database set 40′are each in communication with each other and with the web server 25,the database set 40, the module set 30, and the second module set 30′.

In one embodiment, the Offer Database 260 includes informationassociated with offers relating to the occupancy of a particularproperty. For example, in one embodiment, the Offer Database 260contains information relating to “cash-for-keys” offers. The term“cash-for-keys” as used herein is a broad term that refers to, withoutlimitation, payment to an occupant of a property in exchange for thevoluntary surrendering possession of, and the removing of personal itemsfrom, that property. For example, a broker may offer cash to an occupantwho is to be evicted in exchange for the keys to the property.“Cash-for-trash” refers to a similar arrangement as the cash-for-keysoffer except that the occupant has the option of surrendering possessionof the property without having to remove personal items or other itemsfrom the property.

The Offer Database 260 may also include the status of any offersrelating to the property. For example, the Offer Database 260 may storeupdated information as to whether an offer has been accepted orrejected, has expired or closed, or is currently pending. Furthermore,the Offer Database 260 may include information relating to the amount ofthe offer, dates associated with the offer, and/or other terms ordetails of the offer.

The illustrated Performance Database 262 includes information associatedwith the performance of service providers, such as Contractors 13 and/orAttorneys 14. For example, the Performance Database 262 may includehistorical data relating to a service provider's compliance withdeadlines. The Performance Database 262 may also include informationregarding the completeness, accuracy, and/or timeliness of a serviceprovider's response to particular queries. In addition, the PerformanceDatabase 262 may store various algorithms usable to evaluate theperformance of one or more service providers.

In other embodiments, the second database set 40′ includes fewer modulesthan those depicted in FIG. 17. For example, the second database set 40′may function without the performance database 262. In yet otherembodiments, the second database set 40′ may include other databasesthat work in combination with, or in place of, one or both of thedatabases 260 and 262. Furthermore, in other embodiments, the LPM system250 may function without one or more of the databases 42, 44, 46, and 48of the database set 40 illustrated in FIG. 2. The second database set40′ may be configured in any number of ways as one or more logicaldescriptors that may include, but are not limited to, databases, tables,views, constraints, processes, procedures, datasets, recordsets, andmetadata. One or both of the databases 260 and 262 may communicate witheach other and/or with one or more of the modules 252, 254, 256, and 258so as to allow the storage, transfer, and processing of information asneeded to perform the processes described herein. Furthermore, it is tobe understood that the associations between the various types ofinformation in the databases as described above may be provided throughpointers or other means.

The functionality associated with the modules 252, 254, 256 and 258 ofthe second module set 30′ will now be described. Referring to FIG. 17,the Timeline Module 252 receives and displays information associatedwith the status and/or service provider performance in a particularmatter. For example, the Timeline Module 252 may generate a web pagethat displays to the user time-lined tasks associated with a particularmatter. In one embodiment, the matter may involve an eviction, apost-foreclosure action, a litigation-related matter, and like mattersthat include a set of tasks that may be performed in an establishedsequence and/or in accordance with specified dates. In one embodiment,the Timeline Module 252 communicates with the Case Database 42 toretrieve stored task information for a particular matter.

The Offer Module 254 receives and displays information related to offersassociated with the occupancy of a particular property. In oneembodiment, the Offer Module 254 may retrieve and/or store suchinformation in the Offer Database 260. Preferably, the Offer Module 254generates a web page, or other graphical user interface, that displaysto the user information associated with particular offers, such as forexample, the status and/or the deadlines of outstanding offers. In otherembodiments, the Offer Module 254 may search for files or matters inneed of an offer, search for files or matters in which a response to anoffer is needed, search for files or matters in which an acceptedoffer's vacate date has passed, and/or the like.

The Grading Module 256 processes and/or displays information associatedwith the performance of one or more service providers. In oneembodiment, the Grading Module 256 assesses the performance of a serviceprovider, such as the Contractor 13 or the Attorney 14, according to amathematical algorithm that takes into account multiple variables. Forexample, the Grading Module 256 may process data relating to thetimeliness of a service provider's responses. For instance, the GradingModule 256 may process data relating to the timeliness of: (1) anattorney's responses to particular queries or (2) occupancy statusupdates provided by a broker. The Grading Module 256 may also take intoaccount the performance of a service provider against aggregatetimelines and/or against discrete procedural milestone timelines.Furthermore, the Grading Module 256 may take into account requestedextensions of time due to “legitimate” reasons, such as for unforeseencomplications with the enforcement action process.

In one embodiment, the Grading Module 256 assesses an individual'sperformance in a single matter. In a further embodiment, the GradingModule 256 assesses an individual's performance in a particular taskwithin a matter. In yet other embodiments, the Grading Module 256assesses a group of related service providers. For example, the GradingModule 256 may assess a particular firm of attorneys or brokers. Such anassessment may assist clients in selecting service providers who bestfit the client's needs or who have favorable performance ratings.

The Related Records Module 258 links and displays records that areassociated with a particular property. In one embodiment, the RelatedRecords Module 258 associates records that are related through a commonproperty identification, such as a property loan number. For example,the Related Records Module 258 may link together and display all therecords having the same unique loan number. Such records may relate to,for example, one or more of the following: a post-foreclosure eviction,a post-foreclosure bankruptcy relief-from-stay motion, apost-foreclosure bankruptcy objection-to-plan action, pre-foreclosurebankruptcy relief-from-stay motion, a pre-foreclosure bankruptcyobjection-to-plan action, a foreclosure action, a pre-foreclosure proofof claim action, a landlord-tenant eviction action, a replevin action, acash-for-keys offer, a cash-for-trash offer, and the like.

In one embodiment, the related records are associated with each otherthrough at least one relational database. In other embodiments, therelated records are associated through data structures, such as tablesand/or linked lists, or through pointers.

In one embodiment, the Records Module 258 may link and/or displayrecords that are input by multiple service providers, including multipletypes of service providers. For example, the Records Module 258 may linkand/or display a first record input by a broker and a second recordinput by an attorney. Such an embodiment allows a service provider(e.g., an attorney) to have access to information concerning anothertype of service provider (e.g., a broker).

FIG. 18 illustrates an exemplary Timeline web page 270 allows a serviceprovider to view queries and information associated with timelined tasksfor a particular matter. In one embodiment, the user accesses theTimeline web page 270 through a link, such as a hypertext link, adrop-down menu, a tab, or the like. The web page 270 includes aPerformance Information section 272, a Hold Information section 274, anda Timeline Information section 276. In other embodiments, other types ofinformation or sections may be included. The Timeline Informationsection 276 further includes data relating to the performance ofparticular tasks (identified as numbered steps) for the selected matter.For example, in the illustrated Timeline Information section 276, “Step1” is associated with a “Complaint Out” task, which is identified in aTask window 278. A Timeline window 280 identifies how much time has beenallotted for the particular task. For example, the illustrated Timelinewindow 280 displays a task period in units of one (1) day. Other unitsof time may be used.

The Timeline Information section 276 further includes an Extend Timelinewindow 282 and an associated Reason window 284. In one embodiment, theExtend Timeline window 282 allows the LPM 18, in response to a requestfor an extension of time, to extend the number of days given to completea particular task. For example, the LPM 18 may input a particular numberof days to be added to the number of days displayed in the Timelinewindow 280. The LPM 18 may also input in the Reason window 284 thereasons given for the requested extension. In one embodiment, the ExtendTimeline window 282 and corresponding Reason window 284 allow the LPM 18to increase the number of allotted days for legitimate reasons. Forexample, the LPM 18 may be able to request a time extension due tounforeseen complications, such as a local natural disaster, or due tounforeseen extra steps required in the particular enforcement actionprocess.

In one embodiment, the Timeline Module 252 automatically adjusts thenumber of days displayed in the Timeline window 280 if the deadlineinitially falls on a weekend or a holiday. For example, if the initialdeadline falls on a Sunday, the Timeline Module 252 may add a day to thenumber in the Timeline window 280 such that the new deadline falls on aMonday. In other embodiments, inputting an extension of time in theExtend Timeline window 282 causes the Timeline Module 252 to adjustother dates, including the projected completion date for the entiremater.

The illustrated Timeline Information section 276 further includes a DueDate window 286 and a Task Done window 288. In one embodiment, portionsof the Due Date window 286 and/or the Task Done window 288 arehighlighted based on the current status of the task. For example, theDue Date window 286 may be highlighted a particular color, such asyellow, when the particular task is the current task to be completed bya service provider. As another example, the Task Done window 288 may behighlighted red when a particular task is overdue. In other embodiments,other colors and/or methods may be used to indicate the status of aparticular task.

In other embodiments, other information may be displayed or collected bythe Timeline web page 270. In yet other embodiments, not all of theinformation depicted in FIG. 18 is available to and/or modifiable by alltypes of users. For example, a service provider, such as the Contractor13 or the Attorney 14, may be prevented from inputting information inthe Extend Timeline window 282. In a further embodiment, neither theExtend Timeline window 282 nor the Reason window 284 is displayed tocertain service providers, such as brokers. In other embodiments, theTimeline Module 252 may list on the Timeline web page 270 the files ormatters that need to be closed.

FIG. 19 illustrates an exemplary offer management process 300 executableby a legal management system. For exemplary purposes, the blocksillustrated in FIG. 19 will be described with reference to the LPMSystem 250 of FIG. 17.

At Block 302, the Offer Module 254 waits to receive data indicative of afirst offer relating to a particular property. In one embodiment, theoffer is a “cash-for-keys” offer. In other embodiments, the offer is a“cash-for trash” offer or the like. Preferably, the Offer Module 254receives the offer data from a service provider, such as a broker. Theoffer data may include a wide variety of information including, forexample, the offer status, the vacate date, the offer amount, theexpiration date of the offer, the type of the offer, combinations of thesame, or the like. Furthermore, the Offer Module 254 may automaticallyupdate the offer data, such as after the established expiration date ofan offer, without the need for user input. When the Offer Module 254receives the first offer data, the Offer Module 254 then at Block 304stores the offer data in a database, such as the Offer Database 260. AtBlock 306, the Offer Module 254 displays the current status of the firstoffer. For example, the Offer Module 254 may communicate the first offerstatus through a web page, a text message, or the like. Examples ofoffer status include: accepted, rejected, expired, cancelled, pending,and the like.

At Block 308, the Offer Module 254 determines if the first offer ispending. If the first offer is pending, the process 300 returns to Block302 to await additional information relating to the first offer. If thefirst offer is no longer pending (e.g., accepted, rejected, expired, orcancelled), the Offer Module 254 in Block 310 determines if the firstoffer was accepted.

If the first offer was accepted, the process 300 proceeds with Block312, and the Offer Module 254 displays information relating to theaccepted offer. In one embodiment, the Offer Module 254 displaysinformation relating to the terms of the agreement resulting from theaccepted offer. An exemplary embodiment of a web page that may displaysuch information is illustrated in more detail in FIG. 22. In otherembodiments, the Offer Module 254 may display a summary of the terms ofthe accepted offer.

If the first offer was not accepted, the process 300 continues withBlock 314. At Block 314, the Offer Module 254 waits to receive dataindicative of a subsequent offer associated with the same property asthe first offer. When the Offer Module 254 receives this subsequentoffer data, the process 300 continues with Block 316. At Block 316, theOffer Module 254 stores the subsequent offer data in a database, such asthe Offer Database 260 of FIG. 17. At Block 317, the Offer Module 254displays the current status of the subsequent offer. The process 300then proceeds with Block 318.

At Block 318, the Offer Module 254 determines if the subsequent offer ispending. If the subsequent offer is pending, the process 300 returns toBlock 314 to await additional information relating to the subsequentoffer. If the subsequent offer is no longer pending, the Offer Module254 in Block 319 determines if the subsequent offer was accepted. If thesubsequent offer was accepted, the process 300 proceeds with Block 312,and the Offer Module 254 displays information relating to the acceptedoffer. If the subsequent offer was not accepted, the process 300 returnsto Block 314 to receive data relating to another offer associated withthe same property. Although described with reference to the foregoingembodiments, a wide variety of alternatives exist for the process 300.For example, in one embodiment, the process 300 may be executed withoutBlock 312 such that information with respect to an accepted offer is notdisplayed to certain classes of users.

FIG. 20 illustrates another exemplary embodiment of an offer managementprocess 320 executable by a legal process management system. Forexemplary purposes, the blocks in FIG. 20 will be described withreference to the LPM System 250 of FIG. 17.

The process 320 begins with Block 322 in which the Offer Module 254receives offer data. In one embodiment, the offer data relates to acash-for-keys offer, which is described in more detail above. At Block324, the Offer Module 254 determines if the offer data indicates that anoffer was accepted. If the offer was not accepted, the process 320returns to Block 322.

If the offer was accepted, the Offer Module 254 in Block 326 determinesif there is a concurrent active eviction on the property associated withthe accepted offer. For example, the Offer Module 254 may access data inthe Case Database 42 to determine if there are any active evictions. Ifthere is a concurrent active eviction on the property, the Offer Module254 warns the Attorney 14 that an offer was accepted on the particularproperty. Such a warning alerts the Attorney 14 of a possible conflictbetween the eviction and the terms of the accepted offer and allows theAttorney 14 to take corrective action, if necessary.

If there is no concurrent eviction associated with the property, theprocess 300 proceeds with Block 330. At Block 330, the Offer Module 254determines if a lockout update is entered in an eviction matter for theparticular property. If a lockout update is received, the Offer Module254 at Block 332 determines if the lockout update is in violation of theterms of the accepted offer. If the lockout update does not violate theterms of the accepted offer, the Offer Module 254 at Block 334 storesthe updated lockout data.

However, if the lockout update does violate the terms of the acceptedoffer, the process 320 proceeds with Block 336. At Block 336, the OfferModule 254 warns the service provider that the lockout update violatesthe terms of an accepted offer associated with the occupancy of theproperty. In one embodiment, the Offer Module 254 does not permit theinput of the lockout data that violates the accepted offer terms. Thiswarning allows the service provider to take possible corrective action.

FIGS. 21A and 21B illustrate an Offers web page 340 containing a dialoginterface that allows for the input and display of offer information. Inone embodiment, the Offers web page 340 is controlled and/or updated bythe Offer Module 254. The illustrated Offers web page 340 furthercontains an Offers section 342 and an Add Offer link 344.

The illustrated Offers section 342 displays various details with respectto at least one offer associated with the particular property. Forexample, the Offers section 342 displays information relating to thestatus of the offer, the proposed vacate date, the amount offered, theexpiration date or time duration of the offer, the type of the offer,and additional comments. The Offers section 342 also includes a“Details” link that allows a user to access further information relatingto the particular offer. Other embodiments may display more or lessinformation than what is depicted in FIGS. 21A and 21B. For example, theOffers web page 340 may display information relating to multiple offersfor the same property.

The Add Offer link 344 provides the user with the option of addinginformation related to a new offer, which information may besubsequently displayed in the Offer section 342. The Add Offer link 344comprises a button. However, in other embodiments, the Add Offer link344 may comprise a hypertext link, a tab, or the like. In oneembodiment, the Add Offer link 344 is active when another offer is notpending for the particular property (see FIG. 21A). This helps preventmultiple, co-pending offers for the same property. In one embodiment,the Add Offer link 344, when selected, opens a new window or dialog boxthat allows for additional input by the user.

On the other hand, if there is a pending offer for the particularproperty, the Add Offer link 344 is deactivated. As illustrated in FIG.21B, the Add Offer link 344, may be grayed out. In such an embodiment,the user is not able to add information relating to another offer untilall outstanding offers are no longer pending.

In one embodiment, if an offer is accepted, the LPM System 250 providesto the user an option to view the accepted offer information. FIG. 22illustrates an Accepted Offer web page 350 containing informationrelating to the terms of an accepted offer and/or tax information, suchas a W-9 form. For example, the Accepted Offer web page 350 may displaya cash-for-keys agreement executed with the property occupant. Theagreement may be displayed in any format that is readable by a user ofthe LPM System 250. For instance, the agreement may be in HTML format,in Word (.DOC) format, in PDF format, or the like.

FIG. 23 illustrates a Grading web page 360 that contains assessmentinformation concerning the performance of one or more service providers,according to one embodiment. The illustrated Grading web page 360provides the user with the option of reviewing the assessment of one ormore Attorneys 14. In particular, the performance assessment may relateto a single matter, to multiple related matters (e.g., all evictions),or to all matters handled by one or more Attorneys 14. Preferably, theGrading web page 360 is controlled and/or updated by the Grading Module256, which may access information stored in the Performance Database262. In other embodiments, the Grading web page 352 may display more orless information that what is depicted in FIG. 23. In yet otherembodiments, the Grading web page 352 is only accessible by certaintypes of users, such as by Clients 12 and Attorneys 14.

FIG. 24 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a related records process370 executable by a legal process management system. For exemplarypurposes, the blocks in FIG. 24 will be described with reference to theLPM System 250 of FIG. 17.

At Block 372, the Related Records Module 258 receives a record for aparticular property. Examples of the various types of records receivableby the Related Record Module 258 are described in more detail above. TheRelated Records Module 258 may receive information from a serviceprovider or from the LPM 18. At Block 374, the Related Records Module372 determines if there are other existing records that relate to thesame property as the received record. In one embodiment, the RelatedRecords Module 258 searches the Case Database 376 and/or the OfferDatabase 260 to determine if other related records exist or if arelational database has already been established for the particularproperty associated with the received record.

If no other records exist for the particular property (i.e., the datareceived is the only information recorded for the property), the process370 proceeds with Block 376. At Block 376, the Related Records Module258 creates a related record that includes the information receivedabout the particular property. In one embodiment, the related record isa relational database established to link all records that areassociated with a particular property. In other embodiments, the RelatedRecords Module 258 may utilize tables, linked lists, pointers, and/orother means to associate information. Preferably, the records areassociated through a common identification, such as a unique loannumber. If other records do exist, or if a relational database hasalready been created, the Related Records Module 258 at Block 378associates the newly received record with the other related record(s).

FIG. 25 illustrates a Related Records web page 380 that containsinformation regarding various records associated with a particularproperty. In particular, the Related Records web page 380 provides theuser with a consolidated format wherein the user may access and/or viewall the stored records for a particular property. The illustratedRelated Records web page 380 contains three sections: a Related Matterssection 382, a Related Occupancy Status section 384, and a RelatedOffers section 386. Each of the sections 382, 384, and 386 displays abrief description of the record, a status of the record, and otherinformation. Users also have the option of creating additional recordsthrough the Related Record web page 380. In other embodiments, theRelated Records web page 380 may display more or less information thanwhat is depicted in FIG. 25.

In one embodiment, the Related Records web page 380 is accessible bymultiple types of service providers. This helps avoid wasted or losttime and/or improper activities. For example, an attorney accessing theRelated Records web page 380 may view information regarding any SIEAtaken by a broker (such as, for example, a cash-for-keys offer). Suchinformation may keep the attorney apprised of the broker's actions withrespect to a particular property and/or tenant. For instance, theRelated Records web page 380 may show that a tenant of a particularproperty has voluntarily left the property in accordance with acash-for-keys offer made by the broker. Such information informs theattorney that pursuing court action (e.g., eviction) against the tenantwould not be proper. Likewise, a broker accessing the Related Recordsweb page 380 may view actions previously taken or concurrently beingtaken by an attorney.

The Legal Process Management System.

A preferred embodiment for the processes used by LPM 18 will now bediscussed. The preferred LPM 18 accounts for the existence of stochastic(random) processes, in which the same input may or may not produce thesame output, depending on whether or not certain processes occur, whosefrequency of occurrence is random. The preferred LPM 18 is based on aprocess-based view that focuses on the processes that determine anoutcome. By contrast, prior legal process management systems focus onthe outcomes themselves. The preferred LPM 18 uses a systemcharacterized as follows: (1) the core processes that determine thetotal time to complete a particular SIEA (T) in a particularjurisdiction are driven by events; (2) there are four basic types ofevents and two basic additional process generating mechanisms (called“process triggers”), the existence and occurrence of which are dependenton SIEA type, SIEA jurisdiction, and the conduct of third parties, e.g.an adverse party or the attorney for an adverse party; (3) the SIEAprocess structure is dynamic and exhibits itself as a set of milestoneswhich contain events, while having the stochastic potential foradditional events and milestones; (4) the set of events and processtriggers for each SIEA milestone is finite, which means the events andprocess triggers can be catalogued and their rate of occurrence andimpact on T can be estimated; (5) T is minimized by a system of processcontrols which identify and manage events and process triggers as suchoccur in a particular SIEA; and (6) the data derived from the controlsystem can be employed (a) to manage parallel process (such as LossMitigation) and (b) to prepare reports for Loan Servicers and investors.The process control system can catalogue events and process triggers bySIEA type and jurisdiction, track both frequency of event and processtrigger occurrence and impact on T, create controls which identify boththe occurrence of an event or a process trigger and the optimal methodto minimize T given the occurrence of that specific event or processtrigger, and estimate the impact of a given event or process trigger fora specific SEIA, in a given jurisdiction on an ongoing basis using dataderived from actual completed SIEA.

The Stochastic Structure Used By the Legal Process Manager

Referring to FIG. 26, the preferred LPM 18 uses processes that arestochastic in nature, and are not amendable to illustration throughsimple process flow diagrams. Rather, the processes used by thepreferred LPM 18 are best explained by defining their components, anddescribing how these components interact, giving snapshots of how theprocess structure looks at particular times. For stochastic systems, thesame inputs, over time, will not produce the same output.

FIG. 26 illustrates examples of how a stochastic system, such as thepreferred LPM 18, functions. Scenario One 2601 depicts a process inwhich step 1 is completed first, then step two, then step three and thensteps four and five are skipped. In Scenario Two 2602, only step one iscompleted and there is no need for steps 2,3,4, or 5. In Scenario Three2603, step 1 is completed first, then step 3, then step 2, and steps 4and 5 are skipped. In Scenario Four 2604, step 1 is completed first andthen step 4 is completed followed by step 5. In Scenario Five 2605, step1 is completed then step 2, followed by step 5, and then the processmoves back to step 4 before finishing. FIG. 26 illustrates only a fewexamples of how a stochastic process works and is not meant to beexhaustive. A large number of possible combinations exist for how thesteps could be completed in a stochastic process. In a stochasticsystem, the same process flow may be followed for a given number ofinputs, but the process flow can then drastically change for anotherinput. The key to designing controls for a stochastic system is tounderstand its underlying dynamics (i.e., the ‘moving parts’ and howthey interact).

Milestones and Events in the Preferred Legal Process Manager

The milestones employed in the step process structure constitute afinite set of steps completed in some predetermined order, where eachmilestone is a clear delineation of a new and different step in theprocess. The nature and type of milestones applied will vary from SIEAtype to SIEA type (for example, from a judicial foreclosure action to apost-foreclosure eviction) and within the same type of SIEA, fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction (a CA post-foreclosure eviction differsgreatly from a PA post-foreclosure eviction). The step process model isimplemented in two steps:

Step 1. Identify the relevant milestones for the relevant SIEA withinits relevant jurisdiction;

Step 2. Assign a time (t) for each applicable milestone.

Milestone identification (Step 1). The first step identifies a universalset of milestones for specific SIEA types, and then to determines whichspecific milestones apply. For example, a CA post-foreclosure evictionis commenced by a Notice to Quit (CCP 1161a), a Summons and Complaint(CCP 1161), a Judgment, a Writ and a Lock Out. Jurisdictions in otherstates, for example, may involve a hearing but do not require a Summonsand Complaint. FIG. 29 illustrates a table 2901, which is a table ofdifferent jurisdictions and their respective steps to complete apost-foreclosure eviction. As illustrated in the table 2901,jurisdictions vary widely in the steps required to complete apost-foreclosure eviction.

Step 2. Assign a time (t) for each assigned milestone. Once theappropriate milestones have been identified for a particular SIEA in aparticular jurisdiction, each individual milestone is associated with aspecific time for completing it, and this control measure will vary bothacross and within SIEA types, with the sum of individual step milestonesintending to equal T. Because of the increased complexity of the processstructure, the process control takes on a more detailed form with theamount of time required to complete each milestone 2702 assigned to itsrespective milestone.

In order to calculate (t) for each milestone, each event is preferablyexamined. FIG. 28 depicts the relationship between milestones andevents. An event is any discrete, identifiable action that needs to betaken by some entity in order for a particular milestone to be achieved;in this way, events provide a roadmap that guides the SIEA frommilestone 2702 to milestone 2702A. As can be seen in FIG. 28, Events2703 are subparts of Milestones 2702. In the event process structuremodel, milestones 2701 are interpreted as a series of individualizedprocesses that collectively define the SIEA. Milestones 2702 can bethought of as containers and events 2703 as the contents of thatcontainer; in this way, a milestone contains any number of eventsassociated with it, as shown in FIG. 28. The system may be referred toas an Event Based Management System (EBMS). The events that occur in anEBMS are both finite and manageable and consist of two distinct sets:fixed-frequency events (which always occur (100% frequency)) andrandom-frequency events (whose occurrence is stochastic). EBMSinterprets the SIEA as a stochastic system and in addition to the twogeneral types of events (fixed-frequency and random-frequency) definesfour distinct event types and two types of triggers: fixedfrequency/controlled events; fixed frequency/managed events; randomfrequency/controlled events; random frequency/managed events; externalprocess triggers; and internal process triggers. The sections thatfollow will define each of these and detail how they interact.

Events can be classified along two distinct dimensions: (1) thefrequency of event occurrence and (2) the manner of control over eventcompletion. Events which populate the frequency dimension are of twotypes: fixed frequency and random frequency. Events which populate thecontrol dimension are also of two types: controlled and managed.

Some events will occur with a fixed frequency, while others will occurwith a random frequency throughout the SIEA; and the completion of someevents is directly controlled, while others are only indirectlycontrolled (i.e. “managed”). There are events whose frequency ofoccurrence will be higher than others and whose incidence of control orlack of control will vary from event to event, depending on contextualdetails. Thus, events that fill EBMS milestones will consist of one ofthese four general types: fixed frequency/controlled; fixedfrequency/managed; random frequency/controlled; and randomfrequency/managed.

Fixed frequency events occur in pre-determined and sequential order with100% frequency. The first event of the set should be completed prior tocommencing the second event in the set; the second event should becompleted prior to third; and so on. The characteristics of any givenset of fixed frequency events will depend upon the SIEA milestone, SEIAtype, and SEIA jurisdiction. For example, the fixed frequency eventswhich occur in the “Obtain Judgment” milestone of a PennsylvaniaJudicial Foreclosure differ significantly from those which occur in aSouth Carolina Judicial Foreclosure “Obtain Judgment” milestone, each ofwhich will differ from those which occur in the “Obtain Judgment”milestone of a California post-foreclosure eviction.

Random frequency events occur with random frequency and are generallyassociated with a process trigger.

A process trigger (also referred to as an “event trigger”) is anyexternally imposed action that either (a) generates addition randomfrequency evens or an additional set of random frequency events within aparticular milestone, or (b) generates an entirely new milestone, withits own unique set of events, within the broader SIEA. There are twotypes of process triggers: (1) internal triggers and (2) externaltriggers. An internal process trigger generates additional events withina given milestone, while an external process trigger generates one ormore additional milestones. That is, an internal process trigger addsevents into a milestone, while an external process trigger creates anentirely new milestone with its own unique set of events.

The occurrence or non-occurrence of a process trigger is not known withcertainty in advance, so events associated with a particular trigger areconsidered to occur with a randomly distributed frequency. The processtrigger is responsible for setting a new event or series of events intomotion.

To help illustrate the concept of a process trigger, an internal trigger3510 is illustrated in FIG. 35A. An internal trigger 3510 can occurwhen, for example, serving the Notice on the wrong address 3517 whichtriggers a new set of events 3518, and 3519, associated with therelevant milestone. An example of an external trigger is shown in FIG.35B. An external trigger 3520 establishes a new milestone, such asMilestone 3 3528, that would not have existed within the SIEA in theabsence of such a trigger.

A randomly-occurring process trigger generates an additional set ofevents that are associated with the trigger in question. Theseadditional events may be deterministic insofar as they are associatedwith the trigger. That is, a particular trigger may generate additionalevents that follow a predetermined and sequential pattern.Alternatively, the additional events generated may be stochastic innature. When an external process trigger generates a new milestone, thatmilestone can be processed either parallel to existing milestones or asan additional sequential milestone added to the structure of the SIEA.

When a newly-created triggered milestone is processed in sequence withexisting milestones, all the events of the newly created milestoneshould be completed prior to advancing to the next milestone (or exitingthe system, depending on the sequential position of the triggeredmilestone). This concept is illustrated in the SEQUENTIAL PROCESSING OFA TRIGGERED MILESTONE flowchart 3530 of FIG. 35C. As illustrated, abankruptcy filed during a post-foreclosure eviction may have asequentially triggered milestone 3538 between Milestone 2 3533 andMilestone 3 3534. In such a situation, the triggered milestone 3538should be completed before Milestone 3 3534.

Depending on the characteristics of a newly created milestone, the newlycreated milestone may be processed in parallel to the SIEA milestoneexisting at the occurrence of that milestone generation. As illustratedin FIG. 35D, Parallel process of a triggered milestone flowchart 3540illustrates an example of a parallel processed milestone. The parallelprocessed triggered milestone 3548 is an independent legal action whichattacks the validity of the foreclosure sale, while an eviction ispending. In this example, triggered milestone 3548 is completed at thesame time that Milestone 3 3544 is completed.

A process trigger can have several potential impacts on an eventcompleted prior to its occurrence. These can include a retroactiveeffect, which requires events to be redone. As an example, a retroactiveeffect of a process trigger 3550 is illustrated FIG. 35E. Using theexample of a bankruptcy filed prior to the commencement of eventcompletion on Milestone 3 3554 and discovered after the completion ofall the events contained in Milestone 2 3553, the Triggered Milestone3558 renders all events completed up to that point void, and the processshould return to Milestone 1 3552.

Given the stochastic process structure of a SIEA, the size of T isdependent upon the time required to complete the events that actuallytake place. Many of these events are not known before hand. For example,in one embodiment, the fixed frequency events needed to complete eachmilestone should be completed in sequential order to proceed to the nextmilestone. Thus, minimizing T means minimizing the time to complete eachevent. In turn, the time to complete each event depends upon the abilityto complete those events that actually occur in a given SIEA.

The time needed to complete an event depends on the level of control theLPM 18 has over the person who completes each event. In some instances,the LPM 18 will have a significant amount of control over the relevantthird party, such as when that party is the attorney retained tocommence and to complete a given SIEA. In other instances, the LPM 18will have no control whatsoever over the relevant third party—forexample, whenever that party is the opposing counsel, the opposingparty, a court officer, or a Judge. Events for which the LPM 18 controlsevent completion or occurrence are distinct from the events which theLPM 18 only manages event completion or occurrence.

Thus, in an operational sense, there are two distinct event types:managed events (ME) and controlled events (CE). For all CE, the LPM hasdirect control over the relevant third party; for all ME, the LPM 18lacks that direct control and can only manage the event completion. Anexample of a CE is the drafting of a simple legal pleading. The personwho controls the completion of the drafting of the pleadings is theattorney retained by the PM. An example of an ME is the service of aSummons & Complaint by a county Sheriff. In such an instance, the PMdoes not control the completion of service, as the LPM 18 can controlneither when the Sheriff will attempt service of the documents norwhether the defendant will actually be home to receive service. Theconcept of a “relevant third party” establishes the perspectivenecessary to separate what is controlled and what can only be managed.In most applications of an EBMS, the relevant third party over which theLPM 18 has direct control will be the attorney responsible for eithermanaging or completing the SIEA. The LPM 18 may also control other thirdparty entities as well.

FIG. 27 illustrates an event process structure. At the top level process2708 the aggregate process 2701 is unknown at the outset, but can beestimated by splitting the top level process 2708 into first levelprocess milestones 2702 and the second level fixed frequency events 2703and random frequency events 2704.

Mathematical Summary

The process control mechanisms (aggregate process control, step processcontrol) may be represented using mathematical notation. We have that,for any given jurisdiction j, with step milestones iε(0,n),

$\begin{matrix}{{Y_{j} = {\sum\limits_{i}{\alpha_{ij}X_{j}^{i}}}},{\forall i}} & (1)\end{matrix}$where α_(ij) is the time associated with step milestone i givenjurisdiction j; X_(j) ^(i)=1, if step i exists in jurisdiction j, and 0otherwise; and Y_(j) is the total time in the process.

The preferred embodiment can be described in the following terms: forany jurisdiction j, step milestone iε(0,n), universe of events kε(0,p)and subset of fixed-frequency events hεk, we have:

$\begin{matrix}{{{\hat{\alpha}}_{ij} = {\mu_{hij} + {\sum\limits_{k \notin h}\left( {{{\hat{\beta}}_{kj}Z_{i}^{k}} + ɛ_{ijk}} \right)}}},{\forall k}} & (2)\end{matrix}$

where μ_(hij) is the mean time associated with fixed-frequency eventsassociated with step milestone i, given jurisdiction j; {circumflex over(α)}_(ij) is the time associated with step milestone i, givenjurisdiction j; Z_(i) ^(k)=1 if event k occurs during step milestone i,and 0 otherwise; {circumflex over (β)}_(kj) is the estimated timeassociated with event k, given jurisdiction j; and ε_(ijk)=is a measureof error for event k of milestone i, given jurisdiction j (assumed to beindependent and identically distributed).

Equation 2 can be substituted back into Equation 1, replacing the α_(ij)coefficient in Equation 1 with the model employed in Equation 2. Thecombined model is presented in Equation 2a, below:

$\begin{matrix}{{Y_{j} = {\sum\limits_{i}{\left( {\mu_{hij} + {\sum\limits_{k \notin h}\left( {{{\hat{\beta}}_{kj}Z_{i}^{k}} + ɛ_{ijk}} \right)}} \right)X_{j}^{i}}}},{\forall i},k} & \left( {2a} \right)\end{matrix}$

where all terms are defined as described earlier.

The inclusion of the μ_(hij) term in Equation 2 means that the modeldescribes an EBMS that uses deviation event identification—inparticular, any deviation from the fixed mean is assumed to be afunction of events not captured in the μ_(hij) term, and the impact ofthese events is estimated (via {circumflex over (β)}_(kj)) with someassociated error in estimation (ε_(ijk)). In order to adapt the model inEquation 2 for an EBMSS employing granular event identification, μ_(hij)would drop out, leaving all events in the SIEA to be estimated via aseries of {circumflex over (β)}_(kj) coefficients, as Equation 3demonstrates:

$\begin{matrix}{{{\hat{\alpha}}_{ij} = {\sum\limits_{k}\left( {{{\hat{\beta}}_{kj}Z_{i}^{k}} + ɛ_{ijk}} \right)}},{\forall k}} & (3)\end{matrix}$

where {circumflex over (α)}_(ij)=time associated with step milestone i,given jurisdiction j; Z_(i) ^(k)=1, if event k occurs during stepmilestone i, and 0 otherwise; {circumflex over (β)}_(kj) is the timeassociated with event k, given jurisdiction j; and ε_(ijk)=is a measureof error for event k in milestone i, given jurisdiction j (assumed to beindependent and identically distributed).

Equation 3 can be substituted into Equation 1 for rendering Equation 3aas shown below:

$\begin{matrix}{{Y_{j} = {\sum\limits_{i}{\left( {\sum\limits_{k \notin h}\left( {{{\hat{\beta}}_{kj}Z_{i}^{k}} + ɛ_{ijk}} \right)} \right)X_{j}^{i}}}},{\forall i},k} & \left( {3a} \right)\end{matrix}$

where all terms are defined as described earlier.

Both Equations 2 and 3 are capable of reducing to the constant α_(ij)employed in Equation 1, depending upon the events that do or do not takeplace in a given SIEA. The elegance of these particular formulae alsopermits events to have a positive or negative effect on each stepmilestone. Further, this model provides greater power to explain arandom or quasi-random process by modeling individual step milestones(the X_(j) ^(i) in Equation 1) as a function of randomly-occurringevents (Z_(i) ^(k) in Equations 2 and 3).

A Preferred LPM—The Events Based Management System (EBMS)

An EBMS manages two distinct components: (1) the completion of the SIEAlegal process in question (which is done by the assigned attorney) and(2) the reporting of the progress of the completion of that process(which is done by the assigned attorney to the LPM 18). The twocomponents, while distinct, are related. While the completion of thelegal process is the ultimate goal, the reporting is intertwined withthe completion. Reporting acts as an accountability tool to make certainthe attorney is doing the work in a timely and competent manner.Reporting also provides data to other parties in the process to allowfor more effective and efficient resolution of forced collateralliquidation without resort to litigation. Alternatives to litigationinclude voluntary vacates for post-foreclosure evictions anddeed-in-lieu of foreclosure in real estate foreclosure actions.Reporting allows for identification of problems which can impact theamount recovered, or lost, such as a Borrower's claim that theforeclosure sale is invalid due to improper notice. In addition,reporting provides data to the client and investor in the form ofreports, which allow for future referral of business and pricing offuture transactions.

Referring to FIG. 30, an EBMS 3001 can be based on the use of arelational database 3002. The preferred relational database is SQL 2000,but other relational databases, such as Oracle, may be used. Althoughthe database 3002 is discussed as a single database, it may be comprisea plurality of databases, including some or all of the databasesdiscussed above. As shown in FIG. 30, the EBMS communicates with therelational database 3002. The EBMS then communicates and receivesinformation via a network such as the internet through a web server.Attorneys 3005, Brokers 3006, Investors 3007, Outsourcers 3009, otherServices 3009, and other person who are given access to the EBMS allcommunicate with the EBMS through a network, such as the internet.

Referring to FIG. 31, a relational database 3002 would have variousentries 3101 available for case management. Under such a system, eachSIEA is loaded into its particular set of entries 3101, which containbasic case information. For example, in a post-foreclosure eviction, atypical case entry would contain the borrower's name, the address of theforeclosed property, the client loan number, the LPM number, theidentity of the assigned attorney, and other information. Databases usedin case management systems can be constructed from scratch or purchasedin an off the shelf format such as Pro Law, Amicus, or Time Matters,each of which require some additional customizing.

An EBMS preferably communicates via a network system. However, othermodes of communication with the EBMS can be employed. These modesinclude faxes, phones, or emails. A network based system is preferablybecause it allows authorized users such as attorneys, LPMs, clients,investors, brokers, field services companies, and others access to thesame data. User access to the data is restricted based on userauthorization. For example, a broker is allowed access to the data on apost-foreclosure eviction on a particular property, but is not allowedaccess to the data on a post-foreclosure Relief from Stay motion on thatsame property.

As illustrated in FIG. 32, one embodiment of an EBMS 3001 consists ofthree components: (1) a TRACKING module 3201, (2) QUALITY CONTROL module3202, and (3) REPORTING module 3203. In the following sections, two SIEAtypes will be used as examples: (a) a post-vesting RFS to complete apost-foreclosure eviction and (b) post-foreclosure evictions, with anRFS being the primary example. Although the present system is describedin relation to these two SIEA, any SIEA can be used. A “Post-ForeclosureEvictions” is a state court proceeding to obtain possession of anoccupied property by the purchaser at a foreclosure sale which transferstitle to that property to that owner. A “Post-Foreclosure Relief fromStay Motion” is required when an occupant files a bankruptcy petitionwhile (a) residing in a home which is (b) owned by a third party whichthird party (c) obtained title via foreclosure and (d) has or is aboutto commence eviction process to obtain possession of that real property.In this circumstance, the “automatic stay” provision of federalbankruptcy law will, in most instances, require the approval of anappropriate bankruptcy Judge for the eviction to be commenced orcontinued. The Order granting this approval is called a “Relief fromStay Order” (RFS). While a RFS can be used in other contexts (tocomplete a foreclosure or to repossess an automobile), the belowsections of this application will discuss the construction of an EBMS tomanage RFS required to commence or complete a post-foreclosure eviction.

Referring to FIG. 32, the first building block of any EBMS 3001 is aTRACKING module 3201. One embodiment of a TRACKING module 3201 tracksthe completion of the legal process. In doing so, this module alerts theLPM 18 to any failure on the part of the attorney to proceed in a timelyor competent manner, any difficulties with the case, and any otheruseful information. The EBMS 3001 contains events that actually occur.Thus the EBMS 3001 is more accurate in tracking attorney performancebecause it only tracks events which should be completed. The EBMS 3001reports an exception, in the form of an alert, whenever an attorneyexceeds an assigned τ for a given Attorney Managed Events (AME), withthe estimated time to complete a managed event will henceforth bereferred to as τ. Thus, an EBMS 3001 TRACKING module can track events assuch actually occur in any given SIEA.

In some embodiments, the EBMS TRACKING module 3201 is a “hybrid” modulewhich consists of a milestone tracking module combined with an eventtracking module. Both of which are supplemented by a reporting system.The goal of such a system is to quickly identify the events as eachoccurs and then to quickly implement resolution and completion of thatevent. The occurrence of some of these events is known in advance whilethe occurrence of others is random and unknown.

Referring to FIG. 33, A hybrid EBMS TRACKING module 3201 tracks thecompletion of each SIEA. The TRACKING module 3201 begins at START block3301. It then proceeds to JURISDICTIONAL MILESTONE TEMPLATE module 3302.In the JURISDICTIONAL TEMPLATE module 3302, a design template type isselected from the design templates for the various jurisdictionalmilestone structures. In addition to being designed for specific SIEAjurisdictional type (a post foreclosure eviction as compared to ajudicial foreclosure), these templates can be customized to allow fordifferences within a jurisdiction, as granular as the county in whichthe SIEA is filed, the courthouse in which the SIEA is filed, or thecourthouse in which the SEIA is filed, or the Judge in front of whom theSIEA is pending.

There are two distinct ways to load templates into an individual case:manual or automated. In a manual system, the LPM staff would be requiredto choose a jurisdictional template type as part of the case set. In anautomated system, the LPM staff would choose the Bankruptcy CourtDistrict (such as the Middle District of Tennessee), the BankruptcyJudge (such as Judge Jones) and the bankruptcy type (Chapter 7 orChapter 13) and the EBMS would then automatically load the template.

After the jurisdictional templates have been designed, the next step3303 is to create the Events Catalogue. As illustrated in FIG. 34, anEVENTS CATALOGUE module 3400 contains three modules: a CATALOGUE ALLPOSSIBLE EVENTS AND EVENT TRIGGERS module 3401, a CATEGORIZE EACH EVENTAND EVENT TRIGGER AS ATTORNEY CONTROLLED OR ATTORNEY MANAGED module3402, and an ASSIGN TIME FOR COMPLETION OF EACH EVENT/MILESTONE module3403. The CATALOGUE ALL POSSIBLE EVENTS AND EVENT TRIGGERS module 3401catalogues all possible events and event triggers within thejurisdictional template. The CATEGORIZE EACH EVENT AND EVENT TRIGGER ASATTORNEY CONTROLLED OR ATTORNEY MANAGED module 3402 looks at eachpossible event or event trigger and categorizes it asattorney-controlled or attorney-managed. The ASSIGN TIME FOR COMPLETIONOF EACH EVENT/MILESTONE module 3403 looks at each event or eventmilestone and assigns a time for completion of each event or eventmilestone, and then calculates a total estimated time to complete eachmilestone.

Referring again to FIG. 33, after the EVENTS CATALOGUE module 3400creates the EVENTS CATALOGUE in step 3303, the tracking system ofTRACKING module 3201 assigns an initial time t module in step 3304. Thegoal of the tracking module is to manage the completion of an event or aseries of related events via an assigned time (t). First, at is assignedto each milestone, which in turn is done by assigning an individual t toeach set of fixed frequency events. This t is best considered as a goalor a filter to be used in conjunction with other modules to create theEBMS hybrid tracking system.

In one embodiment, the goal t for each milestone is calculated byassigning at for each jurisdiction. In another embodiment, the goal tfor each milestone is assigned with a uniform t for similarjurisdictional milestones. In some embodiments, t for each milestone iscalculated at the lowest level for each jurisdiction. In the setting ofa RFS, that would mean assigning an individual t for each BankruptcyJudge. The t would be adjusted seasonally, i.e. the t for December ismuch different than the t for August. In other embodiments, allbankruptcy process types would have the same t assigned in alljurisdictions for all times of the year. For example, there are threegeneral structures for setting hearing and granting Relief from Staymotions, which we will define as RFS-1, RFS-2, and RFS-3. Under oneembodiment, all courts using the RFS-1 type would have the same t forall months; all courts using the RFS-2 type would have the same t forall months, and all courts using the RFS-3 type would have the same tfor all months of the year. In another embodiment, the t would beseasonally adjusted based on actual data for t based on the time ofyear.

After a time t is assigned for each milestone, the tracking process ofTRACKING module 3201 tracks the milestones and events in step 3305,which tracks the occurrence and resolution of random frequency eventsand event triggers. Since the standard milestone tracks the completionof the fixed frequency events, this feature supplements and integrateswith the fixed frequency tracking so that, working together, all eventtypes that are capable of occurring in an SIEA, fixed frequency and,random frequency, are tracked and managed. FIGS. 36A, 36B, and 36C showthree fields associated with step 3305: Milestone Impacted field 3603,Days Added field 3604, and Reason field 3605.

The Milestone Impacted field 3603 links the occurrence of a random eventor event trigger to the milestone impacted by that occurrence. The DaysAdded field 3604 lists the goal t for the random event or event triggerwhich has occurred. The Days Added field 3604 in the EVENT TRACKINGmodule 3602 is linked to the t field 3614 in the Milestone TRACKINGmodule 3601, such that an entry into the Days Added field 3604 of theEVENT TRACKING module 3602 is added to the t field 3614 on the MilestoneTRACKING module 3601. The Reason field 3605 identifies the random eventor event trigger which occurred. This field is not linked to theMilestone TRACKING module 3601. It is used to identify the reason foradditional t and to gather data on the t for the occurrence in question.

The database architecture for the EVENT TRACKING module takes intoaccount the possibility that more than one random event or event triggercan occur per milestone. In one embodiment each random event/triggerevent occurrence has its own distinct set of fields. In anotherembodiment, each of the random event/trigger event occurrences istracked in one field as illustrated in FIG. 36C.

In one embodiment, for example, in the embodiments of FIGS. 36A, 36B,and 36C, the event user interface is set up such that the MILESTONETRACKING module 3601 is at the top of the user interface and the EVENTTRACKING module 3602 is on the bottom. Such a structure minimizesconfusion and maximizes efficiency in integrating the MILESTONE TRACKINGmodule 3601 and the EVENTS TRACKING module 3602. In one embodiment, thet filed 3614 would not be shown on the MILESTONE TRACKING Module 3601,rather the column would be kept hidden and used only to calculate theprojected dates in the projected dates field 3614. FIG. 36A illustratesan example in which only fixed frequency events occur. FIG. 36Billustrates an example in which one event trigger occurred. FIG. 36Cillustrates an example in which an event trigger and a random eventoccurred within the same milestone.

As shown in FIG. 36C, the filing of an opposition effected thecompletion of the default date milestone as shown in the default datefield 3612. Hence, the additional timeline days are added to the t field3614 for that Milestone. In this case, the EVENT TRACKING Module 3602shows the impact of the event trigger occurrence as adding 20 days to tfor that Milestone. Those additional 20 days are added to the t field3614 in the MILESTONE TRACKING module 3601 and the projected date forthe completion of the Milestone is adjusted by adding 20 days to theprojected completion date as shown in the projected completion datefield 3615. These adjustments are highlighted in bold.

The event occurrence type is then noted in the reason field 3605. TheEVENT TRACKING module 3602 can be used by manual entry or automatedentry. In some embodiments, for example in the automated entryembodiment, the LPM staff would choose a reason code (such as oppositionin this court is a TE 6) and the system would then automatically fill inthe columns on both the EVENT TRACKING module 3602 and the MILESTONETRACKING module 3601 user interfaces. This data would then be used toreadjust the t for this type of event trigger (including creatingseasonal adjustments). In some embodiments, for example in theembodiment of a manual system, the LPM staff would have a table tofollow and would adjust the Days Added field 3604 according to the tablelistings.

Referring again to FIG. 33, after the step 3305, the tracking systemreports progress in step 3306. This step reports on the EBMS progressstatus. In some embodiments, for example, in the embodiment of FIG. 33,the tracking system sends status reports to LPM staff. The status reportmay include such information as a revised estimated time for completion,as well as the reason for the delay or difficulty. For instance, inATTORNEY FAILURE block 3312, the report contains a message that theattorney failed to complete a task, or in REPORT DIFFICULTIES block3313, the report contains a message that some difficulty out of theattorney's hands is causing delay. By reporting these delays, the LPM 18and LPM staff can choose to allow the process to continue, or canintervene in the process.

After the step 3306, the tracking system detects the presence of anevent trigger in step 3307. If an event trigger has occurred, theprocess moves to step 3310, where the event and milestones for the SIEAare re-chosen. The process then moves to step 3309 where a time t isreassigned for each milestone and an estimated completion time isrecalculated. The process then returns to step 3305. If an event triggerhas not occurred at decision block 3307, then the process moves todecision block 3308, where the system decides if the SIEA is complete,or whether an event which requires the SIEA be ceased (“unmanageableevent”) has occurred. If the SIEA is incomplete and an unmanageableevent has not occurred, the process returns to step 3305. If the SIEA iscomplete, or if an unmanageable event occurs, the system moves to FINISHblock 3311.

In some embodiments, the REPORTING module 3203 is combined with anattorney calendar and/or a text query and response system via an onlineapplication. This type of reporting system allows added control overattorney performance, because the LPM 18 can manage the completion of anevent on whatever level of granularity the LPM staff desires. Theflexibility of the REPORTING module 3203 using the reporting systemprovides is shown in FIG. 38. The query from the LPM 18 is in normaltext. The response by the attorney is in bold italics. This system ofquestion and answer allows the LPM to manage the flow of the SIEA, byidentifying events as such occur and then proposing or managing event orevent trigger completion. A reporting system of this type allows the LPM18 flexibility in the level of events the LPM 18 wishes to manage, andgives the LPM 18 the ability to control for unexpected impacts.

Query #3 of FIG. 38 shows the flexibility to control for unexpectedevents. The t for the hearing in the event catalogue is 20 days. Thus,the LPM 18 could have chosen to accept that 20 day figure, skippingQuery #3 and going directly to Query #4. Instead, the LPM 18 asked forthe actual hearing date, to allow the event to be tracked as it occurs.The REPORTING module 3203 allowed the LPM 18 the flexibility to make achoice as to the level of granularity it wished to obtain and controlwhen an unexpected event occurs. This flexibility is furtherdemonstrated in the choice of Query in Query #4. The LPM 18 in Query #4has gone into greater detail by questioning the grounds of opposition.

In some embodiments, the level of granularity used can be controlled bya variety of systems. In one embodiment, if a certain t is exceeded in agiven milestone, random event, or event trigger milestone, acorresponding granularity level is used. In one embodiment thegranularity is based on the prior performance of the attorney and/or onprior conduct of this particular defendant. In one embodiment, thegranularity is based on the value of the asset. In one embodiment, thegranularity is based on the client's requirement. In one embodiment, thelevel of granularity can also be chosen solely by the database 3002 orit can be done by phone, fax and/or email supplementing the onlinedatabase 3002.

Quality Control

The next component of the EBMS 3001 is the QUALITY CONTROL module 3202.In one embodiment, for example, in the embodiment of FIG. 39, theQUALITY CONTROL module 3202 has three distinct elements. The firstelement is an ASSIGNMENT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES module 3901. Thesecond element is a PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MODULE 3902,and the third element is a RISK MINIMIZATION module 3903.

In one embodiment, the ASSIGNMENT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES module 3901includes two modules, a CLIENTS TO LPM MODULE 3904, and a LPM TOATTORNEY module 3905. The CLIENTS TO LPM MODULE 3904 refers to theprocedures and standards by which an SIEA are referred by clients to anLPM 18. The LPMS TO ATTORNEYS module 3905 refers to the procedures andstandards by which an SIEA are referred by an LPM 18 to attorneys.

In one embodiment, the PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES module 3902,includes two modules, an ATTORNEY REPORTING OF EVENT COMPLETION module3906, and an ATTORNEY PERFORMANCE OF ASSIGNED EVENTS module 3907. TheATTORNEY REPORTING OF EVENT COMPLETION module 3906 reports how theattorney reports to the LPM 18 on progress toward completing theassigned SIEA legal process. The attorney performance of assigned eventsmodule reports whether the attorney performed the assigned SIEA legalprocess in a timely and competent manner.

In one embodiment, the risk minimization module contains three modules,a TIMELY AND COMPETENT EVENT COMPLETION module 3908, AN IDENTIFY ANDRESOLVE NON-SIEA LEGAL ATTACKS module 3909 and an ASSURANCE NO LEGALRISK CREATED BY SIEA module 3910. The TIMELY AND COMPETENT EVENTCOMPLETION module 3908 reports on whether the SIEA was timely andcompetently completed. The IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE NON-SIEA LEGAL ATTACKSmodule 3909 identifies and aids in resolving a non-SIEA legal attack.The ASSURANCE NO LEGAL RISK CREATED BY SIEA module 3910 identifies andmakes sure that the SIEA process is not creating additional legal risk.

In one embodiment, SIEA management starts with an assignment. The fileshould be assigned by the client to the LPM 18, as in CLIENT TO LPMmodule 3904, and from the LPM 18 to the attorney, as in LPM TO ATTORNEYmodule 3905. The assignments set the “start” of the timeline and thecommencement of the initial t. It is like the start gun going off at thecommencement of a race. In one embodiment, the CLIENTS TO LPM module3904 tracks how the SIEA gets to the LPM 18. It tracks how the assigningparty knows the case was sent and received, and it follows up when theLPM 18 does not confirm receipt. In one embodiment, the LMP TO ATTORNEYmodule 3905 performs virtually the same functions as the CLIENTS TO LPMmodule 3904, except that it tracks the flow of the SIEA from the LPM 18to the attorney. This type of system is illustrated in FIG. 40. Withinthe ASSIGNMENT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURE module 3901 are three modulesASSIGN CASE module 4001, CONFIRM RECEIPT OF ASSIGNMENT module 4002, andFOLLOW UP SYSTEM module 4003. The ASSIGN CASE module 4001 regulates theassigning of SIEA events to LPMs 18 and attorneys. The CONFIRM RECEIPTOF ASSIGNMENT module 4002 confirms the receipt of the assigned case. TheFOLLOW UP SYSTEM module 4003 keeps track of how well the assigned casesare picked up including how quickly, as well as why an LPM 18 orattorney has not picked up a case.

Systems for assigning SIEAs can include automated downloads, emailnotifications, fax assignments, and email assignments. Under theautomated downloads system, the assignments are automatically downloadedfrom the Client database to the LPM database or from the LPM database tothe attorney database. Under the email notifications system, theassignment is loaded into the LPM database and made available to theattorney via a Web based application. After the assignment is preloadedinto the LPM online database, the assigned attorney is notified of thisassignment via email and is asked to “pick it up” by logging into theWebsite. Under the fax assignment system, the client faxes theassignment on a case-by-case basis to the LPM 18 or the LPM 18 faxes theassignment on a case-by-case basis to the attorney. The email assignmentsystem is essentially the same as the fax assignment system, except thatthe assignment is done via email rather than fax.

Systems for confirming receipt of an SIEA can be separate or integratedinto the assignment systems. For instance, in an automated assignmentsystem, when a client downloads an assignment, the system confirmsreceipt. In an email notification assignment system, if an assignment isnot confirmed within a given period of time, the system can follow upvia phone calls, emails, or fax. In a fax assignment system, the fax cancontain a signature line that can be faxed back confirming receipt. Inan email assignment, a reply email can be sent, either by the LPM 18 orattorney manually sending a reply email or by automatically requestedemail replies.

A measurement system and/or a follow up system can be used to track theacceptance of assignments. In a measurement system, the LPM 18 measureshow quickly the attorney “picks up” the assignment, in some case, to theseconds. The attorney is then rewarded with additional assignments or abetter evaluation based on the speed with which the attorney “picks up”assignments. In the follow up system, the LPM or client assigns a giventime period, for example, one business day, and if the attorney hasfailed to confirm acceptance within that time period, the LPM thencontacts the attorney directly and inquires as to the reason for thedelay. In the follow up system, an attorney which consistently fails toconfirm assignments within the allotted time period is punished by alower number of assignments, a lesser performance evaluation, or somecombination thereof.

In one embodiment, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES module 3902includes metrics by which SIEA completion is tracked, managed andmeasured. In one embodiment of an EBMS, the performance standards andprocedures module measures the timeliness and effectiveness ofcompletion of the events which actually occur in a given SIEA. To dothis, an EBMS can use two sets of performance standards: reportingstandards and action standards.

In one embodiment, the ATTORNEY REPORTING OF EVENT COMPLETION module3906 measures reporting standards. Reporting standards measure andreport the timeliness and accuracy of the case progress by the attorneyto the LPM 18. An efficient reporting standard is important to an EBMS.The ATTORNEY REPORTING OF EVENT COMPLETION module 3906, in oneembodiment, is in an attorney calendar text query and response format,or calendar query response system, as described earlier in thisapplication. Reporting standards can include timeliness andcompleteness.

In setting a reporting standard, the following factors should beconsidered: (1) Reporting is not an end in itself. The final goal of allEBMSs is the timely and competent completion of SIEA Legal Process, notthe reporting of what the attorney is doing. Reporting is simply an endto that means, not an end in and of itself (2) One of the primarypurposes of reporting is to supply the LPM with accurate information asto how well the attorney is completing the assigned legal process so asto allow the LPM to evaluate and correct, as needed, those services. (3)Event completion reporting should not be the primary method by which theLPM 18 learns of the occurrence of unusual or significant event triggersor unexpected events which significantly impact legal risk and exposure.The assigned attorney should be charged with the primary responsibilityto contact the LPM 18 via email, phone or fax with such significantevents. The reporting system should only act as a back up to catch thosematters that are missed by the assigned attorney. (4) The cost to theattorney in reporting and attorney staff time used in reporting statusshould be minimized. (5) The cost to the LPM 18 of managing thereporting module should also be minimized. (6) The goal of reporting isto provide both a rough level of accountability as well as managementcontrol over the legal process.

In the end, the attorney is judged on the actual completion of the legalprocess. If, the attorney is not completing the legal process in atimely and competent fashion, the attorney will lose assignments. Thus,it is far more important that the attorney complete the legal processwell than report well.

In one embodiment, there are three separate standards for reportingunder a Calendar Query System: (a) the calendar date for the query; (b)the requested due date for the response, and (c) the required due datefor the response, after which both manual follow up and consequenceswill be imposed.

The difference between a requested due date and a required due date isone of cost and consequences. A requested due date can be followed upwith an automated follow up, such as emails or a set of escalatingemails. A required due date means that the information needed issignificantly overdue and the attorney has failed to supply the neededinformation within a time needed to evaluate action performance. Thesetting of these two dates is a balancing act.

In one embodiment, different criteria can be used for setting calendardates, requested response dates, and required response dates. In oneembodiment, the calendar reporting system is based on one weekincrements. Calendar dates can be set depending on event type: forattorney controlled event (ACE), the calendar date is set for date ofexpected completion (usually one business day); for AMEs, the calendardate is set for the estimated date of completion. In this manner, theCalendar acts as a true “Calendar” and gives the attorney a daily set oftasks to be completed.

In one embodiment, the requested reporting response date is two daysafter the calendar date. This is only a requested date and the requestedreporting response date is not policed. The requested response date canbe varied by the LPM 18 depending on event type. For example, an LPM 18could set the response time for an ACE at one day and an AME at two orthree days. In one embodiment, the requested response due date for bothan ACE and an AME is the same day.

In one embodiments, every thursday, an email remainder for alluncleared, meaning no response given to an outstanding query, items onthat attorney's calendar is sent out. This reminder email helps keep theLPM management costs at a minimum. Thursday can be used as the reminderdate as it is two business days from Monday and should act an effectivereminder to the attorney to complete all tasks set for that week.

In one embodiment, the required response date is Sunday. For example,all responses for the Calendar for the week of Nov. 14, 2005 throughNov. 18, 2005 are due by Sunday Nov. 20, 2005. All updates for the weekof Nov. 14, 2005 through Nov. 18, 2005 not received by Nov. 20, 2005 aredeemed late and will result in the offending attorney being charged withviolating the reporting standard. Failure to report by Sunday may resultin individual follow up on Monday of the following week, which can beescalated on Tuesday. These violations can then be used to evaluate theamount of future business that will be referred to that attorney. Thisapproach is consistent with the emphasis on the actual completion of thelegal process rather than complying with strict reporting standards.

Preferably, all reporting should be complete, clear and accurate. It caninclude the dates of actions taken, and, when available, the relevantdue dates for the next anticipated event. In one embodiment, if aresponse is not clear or appears not to be accurate, an LPM 18 canfollow up via phone, email or fax.

In one embodiment, an EBMS sets separate action standards for differenttypes of events. In one embodiment, those action standards include ACEsand AMEs. Different performance standards can be applied to thedifferent action standards.

The following are one embodiment of a set of action standards for ACEsin post-foreclosure evictions, post-foreclosure RFS motions, andpost-foreclosure Objection to Chapter 13 Plan matters.

Eviction Matters

A. Commencement of First Legal Step:

(1) First business day after title documents to start the eviction havebeen received.

B. All Subsequent Legal Process after First Legal Step Under AttorneyControl:

(1) For simple legal documents which should be automated, within onebusiness day of each step's availability per local statute or custom.These documents include Notices to Quit, Summons, Complaints, defaults,judgments, and similar documents. (2) For other legal documents whichrequire separate non-automated preparation, three business days fromreceipt of information needed to prepare the motion or declarations insupport of the motion, unless proper research and preparation requiresadditional time.

Relief From Stay Motions

A. Motion Filing:

(1) If ECF filings allowed, two business days. (2) If ECF filings notallowed, motion should completed and sent for filing within two businessdays and filed as quickly as is practicable.

B. Hearing dates:

(1) The first possible on regular notice under the court's calendar.

Objection to Plans

A. If the Objection filing deadline is at least 15 days after theeffective date of a Relief from Stay Order, then two business days afterthe effective date of the companion Relief From Stay motion.

B. If the Objection filing deadline does not allow, within five (5)business days of confirmation of the need to file an Objection or priorto Objection filing deadline, whichever first occurs.

C. If the assignment is less than 3 days from the Objection filingdeadline, within one business day of the assignment. If time allows, allobjections should be filed at a minimum of ten business days prior tothe Objection filing deadline.

D. The goal of this section is to have all Objections assigned prior tothe expiration of the filing deadline.

The following are one embodiment of a set of action standards for AMEsin post-foreclosure evictions, post-foreclosure RFS motions, andpost-foreclosure Objection to Chapter 13 Plan matters:

Receipt of Title Documents to Commence the Eviction:

A. In jurisdictions for which deed recordation or execution is notrequired to commence the eviction, the title documents should beobtained within two business days after the completion of the final stepof the foreclosure process.

B. In redemption states, if the matter is assigned after redemption hasexpired, one business day from assignment. If assigned prior toredemption expiring, the next business day after the failure to redeemand occupancy has been confirmed.

C. In states in which deed recordation is required, within five businessdays of deed recordation.

D. In states in which deed execution, but not recordation, is necessary,within five business days of deed execution.

Hearing, Motion and Trial Dates:

A. First practicable.

Service of Process:

A. The most effective available means. If this requires the retention ofa private process servers retained by supervised attorney, suchretention shall be done, unless state law mandates use ofSheriffs/Constables.

B. For private process servers, all process to be served on individualsis to be served within five (5) business days of placement of documentsand pleadings with the process server. If not so served, then LPMexpects to be presented with a request for alternative methods ofservice, such as a motion for posting and mailing.

C. For state-mandated process servers, the timeline is the customarytime frame for service on individuals (i.e. in Pennsylvania, uniformedstate officers must serve the process and are allowed by state law 30days for same).

D. While the service of process on individuals is an attorney-managedfunction, the placement of documents for service is anattorney-controlled function. Thus, the placement of the documents forservice is controlled by Part I, Section C, and should be placed by nolater than the first business day the documents can be placed forservice.

Filing of Documents with the Court:

A. The documents shall be sent for filing with the Court within one (1)business day of the first date possible for such filing.

B. Actual filing dates will depend on the method used to file theparticular document with the court. LPM prefers use of a courier service(most process service firms provide this service for a fee) for criticaldocuments which can be picked up and returned the same day. If thislevel of service involves additional costs, please contact LPM forapproval of such costs.

Picking up Documents from the Court:

A. If practicable, documents are to be picked up within one (1) businessday of availability. The key in picking up documents is to not preventthe next step from taking place because a document is sitting in aclerk's “out” box. If the next step is not impacted, this performancestandard does not apply.

B. If the documents are being mailed back by the court clerk AND thecourt clerk allows for pick up of the documents AND that pick up willsave more than two days of timeline, and then please call LPM to discussthe additional cost of pick up.

Continuances:

Supervised attorney is given the authority to continue hearings andtrials. In some instances, the trial court procedure will require acontinuance. Continuances should be granted only for cause, and whichcause should be explained to LPM at the time the continuance is reportedto LPM. All continuances are to be for the shortest time practicableunder the circumstances. In most jurisdictions, continuances over 30days should be done only on LPM approval.

Follow-Up with Courts & Clerks on Submitted Documents and Matters:

Weekly, unless a reason exists to do such follow ups less frequently.LPM understands that frequently contacting a Court Clerk or a Judge fora discretionary ruling or document process can sometimes becounter-productive. If less than weekly contact is recommended by thesupervised attorney, please contact LPM to explain the reasons and thesuggested follow-up schedule.

The EBMS allows the use of data to set action standards, particularlyAME action standards. As an attorney does not control an AME, but simplymanages it, data will be extremely helpful in setting an AME actionstandard. Thus, data on how long it has taken to obtain an Order to Postfor service of a summons and complaint in Philadelphia, Pa. should beused to set the performance standard for that AME.

An EBMS can allow for flexibility in setting Reporting and Actionstandards. Some clients may demand very strict Reporting responsestandards or wish to set differing actions standards for the variousAMEs or ACEs. EBMS design allows for different clients to set differentstandards and allow the LPM to administer those differing standards.

Referring again to FIG. 39, in one embodiment RISK MINIMIZATION module3903 includes a TIMELY AND COMPETENT EVENT COMPLETION module 3908, ANIDENTIFY AND RESOLVE NON-SIEA LEGAL ATTACKS MODULE 3909, and anASSURANCE NO LEGAL RISK CREATED BY SIEA MODULE 3910. In one embodiment,the TIMELY AND COMPETENT EVENT COMPLETION module 3908 acts to minimizethe total time T to complete an SIEA. The minimization of T reduces therisk inherent to time: additional claims carry cost, damage to theproperty, and the like.

In one embodiment, the IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE NON-SIEA LEGAL ATTACKSmodule 3909 acts to reduce the legal liability claimed for conductoutside the particular SIEA. For example, the occupant in a postforeclosure eviction claims that the foreclosing lender engaged infraudulent and illegal practices in originating and servicing the loan.Such a claim does not arise out of the post-foreclosure eviction, and inmost jurisdictions, cannot be raised as a defense to it. Such a claim,however, can give rise to significant liability to the foreclosinglender if the LPM 18 proceeds to evict the occupant withoutinvestigating and evaluating the grounds for the claim. This process isillustrated in FIG. 41. RISK MINIMIZATION module 3903 can contain threemodules including a TIMELY AND COMPETENT EVENT COMPLETION module 3908,an IDENTIFY AND RESOLVE NON-SIEA LEGAL ATTACKS module 3909, and anASSURANCE NO LEGAL RISK CREATED BY SIEA module 3910. The IDENTIFY ANDRESOLVE NON-SIEA LEGAL ATTACKS module 3909 can also contain threemodules, an IDENTIFY THE MAKING OF A CLAIM module 4103, an EVALUATEVALIDITY module 4104, and a RESOLVE IT module 4105. The IDENTIFY THEMAKING OF A CLAIM module 4103 identifies the making of a non-SIEA legalattack. The EVALUATE VALIDITY module 4104 automatically, or withassistance, manually evaluates non-SIEA legal attack. The RESOLVE ITmodule 4105 then takes steps to resolve the SIEA.

In one embodiment, the ASSURANCE NO LEGAL RISK CREATED BY SIEA module3910 minimizes risks in the SIEA in question within the context of allthe processes actually used by the client at the stage of the forcedcollateral liquidation process. These issues are generally specific tothe SIEA in question and the client internal processes. As to being SIEAspecific, the same risks present in a post-foreclosure eviction are notpresent in a foreclosure action. For example, the federal Fair DebtCollection Practice Act applies to foreclosures but does not apply topost-foreclosure evictions. The same applies to client internalprocesses. In addition, some clients will negotiate sales of foreclosedproperty to the occupants while the post-foreclosure eviction is beingprosecuted. Should such a client actually close a sale to an occupant,the client will not wish to evict the owner. If the client does not sellto occupants while the post-foreclosure eviction is being prosecuted,the eviction after sale is not a risk that needs be addressed by the LPM18.

Referring again to FIG. 39, in one embodiment, the QUALITY CONTROLmodule 3202 can evaluate how well an attorney or performs the legalservices of completing a particular SIEA on an event by event basis,and/or after completion. By using different action standards for ACEsand AMEs, the LPM 18 is able to evaluate both the timeliness andeffectiveness of an attorney's handling of an SIEA. ACE actionperformance can be tracked through the “hybrid” EBMS tracking system.Because of the inherent nature of an ACE, to track performance of an ACEis to evaluate compliance.

In one embodiment, an EBMS can evaluate an AME based on data for similarAMEs in that, or similar jurisdictions. AMEs whose completion timeexceeds the assigned t can then be viewed on a case-by-case basis. Insome embodiments, if an LPM 18 or client wish, the initial review forall cases where t exceeds the allowable figure by less than a givennumber is reviewed by lower staff and is escalated when t exceeds thethreshold for management review. In such a system, for example, if t forcompleting the event OBTAIN A POST AND MAIL ORDER in Philadelphia, Pa.is 20 days, and that event is not completed by the 21^(st) day, then theLPM staff are responsible for resolution until the 27^(th) day. If it isnot resolved by the 27^(th) day, the file is then moved to an LPMmanager for review and resolution. This type of system can beimplemented and controlled by weekly quality control reports.

By differentiating between an ACE and an AME, an EBMS can provide aneffective and pro-active quality control for evaluation of attorneyperformance, both during the actual SIEA process and after completion.The impact of AMEs can be estimated, and a variety of parameterestimation techniques exist for precisely this purpose, including simplemeans, OLS, GLS, 2SLS, ML, MCMC, and Bayesian methods. The estimatedtime to complete a managed event will henceforth be referred to as T.

In one embodiment, the ASSURANCE OF NO LEGAL RISK CREATED BY SIEA module3910 first identifies legal claims originating outside the SIEA. Thereare many sources of legal risk that originate outside of the SIEA. Asource of legal risk for clients includes a legitimate claim for conductwhich occurred prior to the SIEA being pursued, for example an attack onthe validity of the foreclosure sale. If such a claim is made during apost-foreclosure eviction, an EBMS can have a system in place whichidentifies the making of the claim; evaluates the validity of such aclaim; and proceeds to resolve it.

In one embodiment, claim evaluation can be done on a case-by-case basis.If the evaluation shows the claim has potential merit and provides legalexposure to the client, then the LPM 18 can invoke a client specific setof procedures. Once again, how a client wishes to respond to such aclaim can be decided on a case-by-case and client-by-client basis. Ifthe evaluation shows the claim lacks merit or client decision is toproceed with the post-foreclosure eviction, then the opposition to theeviction can be an event trigger and can be managed accordingly. Forexample, opposition to a post-foreclosure eviction based on the claim ofinvalidity of foreclosure sale can be treated as a type of opposedeviction, with the opposition being assigned a t.

In one embodiment, the client, on a weekly or daily basis, sends the LPM18 a complete list of all files that the client's database shows are ineviction status. The LPM then reconciles the client's data set with theset of files that the LPM shows it has in eviction status for thatclient. This ensures that the LPM's 18 list of files in eviction matchesthe client's list, which avoids legal risk in having the LPM 18 goforward on files the client has removed from eviction status. Somereasons for removal from eviction status are: sale to occupant;foreclosure sale vacated and file removed to redo foreclosure sale;foreclosure sale voided by pre-sale bankruptcy, file moved to clientBankruptcy Department; or file transferred to client LitigationDepartment due to ongoing litigation. In many instances, the client willsell or transfer a property and not advise either the LPM 18 or theeviction attorney. This report prevents the LPM 18 from proceeding withfiles that it should have closed due to non-eviction related conduct.

This reconciliation also has the added bonus of identifying for theclient all the properties that the LPM 18 knows are vacant but theclient still has in active eviction status. Thus, the client is assuredthat files are moved quickly from eviction status to marketing status soas to avoid any delays in the sale of that asset.

In one embodiment, the EBMS can provide a system to alert other partiesinvolved in the SIEA to place a hold on the SIEA. For example in apost-foreclosure bankruptcy, in addition to mandating the obtaining of aRelief from Stay Order to proceed with a post-foreclosure eviction, thefiling of a post-vesting Bankruptcy stays the client related LossMitigation efforts. In a post-foreclosure eviction context, all clientsengage in loss mitigation while the eviction is being processed. Lossmitigation normally consists in contacting the occupant to negotiate avoluntary vacate in exchange for a cash payment. This process is runconcurrently with the eviction process and is normally performed bythird parties not managed by the LPM 18.

In one embodiment, if a client or its representative contact an occupantof foreclosed property after that occupant has filed bankruptcy, even ina Loss Mitigation context, that contact is a violation of the automaticstay and can result in legal exposure to the client. To minimize therisk of the client or a third party violating the automatic stay withLoss Mitigation efforts, it is necessary for the LPM 18 to broadcast a“hold” on all loss mitigation efforts to both the client and the thirdparty responsible for the loss mitigation. In one embodiment a specialscreen is provided in the online EBMS which alerts all parties as to thefiling. FIG. 42 illustrates the screen on which a post-foreclosurebankruptcy filing is communicated to the EBMS. The screen 4201 includesdate entry 4202, type entry 4203, update entry 4204, and submit button,4205.

The LPM 18 or the attorney can supply the pertinent information in theupdate field 4204 and then push the submit button 4205 to upload theupdate. This filing of the bankruptcy and the need for all parties tocease contract with the Borrower and all legal process can then beemailed to all affected parties. Giving this notice can then be listedin an appropriate notes field of the online database application.

Many clients run their Loss Mitigation efforts concurrent with the postforeclosure eviction. Post-foreclosure eviction Loss Mitigation iscalled “Cash for Keys”. Under this type of program, the client offers topay the occupant if the occupant will voluntarily vacate the foreclosurerealty by an agreed date. In one embodiment, a provision is placed inall Cash for Keys Agreements under which (1) the eviction continues but(2) the client agrees not to proceed to lock out after the agreed vacatedate. A “lock out” is the forcible removal of the occupant and hisproperty by a court officer. Under this agreement, the occupant is givento a date certain, such as October 15, to vacate the property. If theoccupant vacates by October 15, then the client will pay the agreed sum;if the occupant fails to vacate by October 15, then the client canhopefully lock out on October 16. The key understanding is that no lockout can occur prior to the agreed vacate date. In this example, if theclient were to proceed to lock out prior to October 14, then the clientwould be liable for breach of contract damages. The goal is to have thelock outs set for the day after the agreed vacate date.

Thus, the LPM 18 needs to have a system to make certain that upon beingadvised of the existence of a cash for keys agreement that the LPM 18does not allow the eviction to proceed to lock out prior to the agreedvacate date. In one embodiment, a lockout notification and trackingsystem is provided. A field can be provided in the database 3002 whichlists all agreed cash for keys vacate dates.

One of the final steps in an eviction is a “lock out.” At a lock out,the Sheriff forcibly removes any occupants and their personal propertyfrom the premises. Lock outs are usually done by court officer setappointment. For most lock outs to occur, the court officer requiresthat a client representative be at the property at the date and time setby the court officer. In most jurisdictions, the failure of a clientrepresentative to be present at the property at the date and time set bythe court officer for the lock out will result in the lock out beingcancelled and the eviction process being restarted from the beginning.Thus, an entire post-foreclosure eviction can be lost if the clientrepresentative fails to attend the lock out.

In one embodiment, a system is provided to advise the clientrepresentative of the lock out date and time and confirm attendance atthe lock out. Information useful to a client representative for a lockout confirmation includes: the date and time of the lock out; the locallaw enforcement contact information; the local requirements for the lockout crew, for example, the District of Columbia requires a 25 personcrew for all lock outs; and the local requirements for disposal ofpersonal property.

In one embodiment, for example, in the embodiment of FIG. 43, a screenis provided to assist in entering information useful to clientrepresentatives at a lock out. The local attorney or LPM staff can fillout the screen and send the information to the database 3002. Lock outscreen 4301 includes add date field 4302, lock out date field 4303,sheriff field 4304, type field 4305, lock out time field 4306, sheriffphone number field 4307, crew needed field 4308, personal propertyadvise box 4309, and submit button 4310. Access to this form can beprovided to the attorney via a drop down menu. Once the attorneycompletes the form, then the attorney can click the “submit” button andthe information contained in the lock out notification screen can beemailed to the client assigned party responsible for the lock out, tothe client, to the LPM 18, or to any other person designated by theclient or the LPM 18. If any party receiving email notification has aseparate database with fields for this information, this information canthen be automatically downloaded into that database. In one embodiment,the automatic lock out notification is confirmed manually by a phonecall, fax, or email confirmation.

One of the greatest sources of legal risk in post-foreclosure evictionis disposal of personal property. In order to combat this risk, in someembodiments, a Personal Property Advice Box is provided. An exemplaryweb page of a Personal Property Advice Box 4401 is shown in FIG. 44. Theweb page 4401 includes an Add Date interface 4402, a Lock Out Dateinterface 4403, a Sheriff identity interface 4404, a Lock Out Typeinterface 4405, a Lock Out Time interface 4406, and a Sheriff PhoneNumber interface 4407, each of which allows the user to enterinformation relating to the lock out. The web page 4401 further includesa Crew Needed interface 4408 and a Personal Property Advice interface4409, each of which allows the user to enter information relating to thelock out. The web page 4401 further includes a Submit Button 4410, whichallows the user to submit the information entered through the variousinterfaces discussed above. In this system, the client assigned partyresponsible for personal property disposal can log onto an online systemand be advised of the recommend method for disposal of personalproperty. How to dispose of personal property remaining at lock out canbe supplied by the personal property advice box included as part of thelock out notification screen.

Two types of personal property confronted in a post-foreclosure evictionare untitled and title motor vehicles. The Personal Property Advice Boxcan be used for both types. In one embodiment, two components make upthe Personal Property Advice Box. These are a table which contains thelaw of personal property disposal, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and away to access this information online or via email. Disposal of untitledpersonal property can vary depending on whether or not the personalproperty is disposed of prior to commencement of eviction process,during the eviction process or at lock out.

Using the information in the database 3002, the Reporting Module 3203provides the Personal Property Advice Box 4401 with the recommendedmethod for disposal of personal property at the various stages of thepost-foreclosure eviction process. The database 3002 preferably includesinformation on the jurisdictional requirements for the disposal ofpersonal property in all possible circumstances, including thetermination of a landlord/tenant relationship, an involuntary transferof title, and a voluntary transfer of title. The database 3002 alsopreferably includes information on the jurisdictional requirements forthe disposal of untitled personal property depending on whether or notthe personal property is disposed of prior to commencement of theeviction process, during the eviction process, or at lock out. The LPMstaff or the assigned attorney may be given editing rights to modifythis “default” based on the circumstances of each particular case. Thesescreens may be made available online for use during the eviction processor at lock out. This system may also be used at the pre-lock out stagesof the eviction process. In one embodiment, an attorney licensed in thestate in question approves this disposal method on a case-by-case basisprior to the recommendation being sent to the client.

Reports

In some embodiments, an EBMS is configured to allow for reports to begenerated including information on completion date, performanceevaluation, and default impact. An example of such a report andreporting system is illustrated in FIG. 37. EBMS module 3001communicates with DATABASE 3002 in order to create a REPORT 3701, whichis communicated to the ATTORNEY, CLIENT, LPM, OR BROKER 37. The reportcan include any pertinent information such as the date the propertyentered the SIEA system, the projected completion date, the date thelast offer was made, the date of the expiration of the last offer andthe last offer amount. Other information may also be included such as arecommended offer amount for a new offer, or a recommended offer datefor a new offer.

Completion date refers to the date that a given case is expected to becompleted in a given jurisdiction. This type of report can be based on afixed frequency set of events plus other events as such occur. Or thistype of report can be based on the estimated likelihood of triggerevents or random events occurring in the SIEA based on the data showingevent occurrence for the type of SIEA in the given jurisdiction and thetype of asset class and borrower class.

The estimated date of completion is important to client Loss Mitigationefforts. For example, in a post foreclosure eviction, the time estimatedto complete the eviction process can be used to set the amount of theCash for Keys Offer. Thus, T is of significant value to these efforts.In one embodiment, as other events not accounted for in the set of fixedfrequency events occur, then an EBMS can provide realistic projectionsof T based on what actually occurs in a case. For example, the T of apost-foreclosure eviction in Pittsburgh, Pa. is set at 120 days. If theoccupant dodges service, then an order to post and mail is required.This event trigger is an AME not included in the initial estimate of T.If one assumes the τ for that AME is 22 days, then the correctestimation of the completion of the post-foreclosure eviction would be142 days, being the sum of T+τ. This type of information could be listedin a report available to the client online or submitted at client setintervals to the client.

The structure of these reports can vary. In one embodiment, the reportis emailed in a spreadsheet format when a file is opened or theprojected completion date is modified by an event occurrence. In oneembodiment, it can be available online and show changes and the reasonsfor changes. In one embodiment, it can be included as part of a datacalculator which sets the cash for keys offer. For example, assuming theclients assigned cost for carrying this property is set at $20 per dayand cost to lock out is set at $1,000. The report can include a clientapproved cash for keys offer which could adjust over time.

An EBMS allows for a more sophisticated report. In one embodiment, anEBMS calculates the likelihood of the occurrence of events in additionto the fixed frequency events and the estimated impact of those eventson T. The EBMS calculation can be built using a variety of estimationtechniques and statistical software. Using the estimation technique, acash for keys offer can be calculated at the beginning of the evictionprocess based on the statistically modeled likely completion date.Projected completion dates for SIEA are used regularly in valuing theloans which are secured by the assets. These projections include thelikelihood of default, the time to complete an SIEA, and the estimatednet value of the collateral at liquidation. The reports generated by anEBMS can be used for such estimations. These values can include moreaccurate estimates of the time to complete the fixed frequency events,as all AMEs would be based on τ, and to complete the entire SIEA basedon the frequency of occurrence of events other than the fixed frequencyevent set.

In one embodiment, a variety of reports can be generated to evaluate thein process progress of a case. The reports can track how timely anattorney is reporting, how timely and competently an attorney iscompleting the SIEA legal process, or both. The most critical reportscan list the cases which are exceeding t for an assigned event or seriesof events. The report can be based on the events that actually occur assuch occur. In some embodiments, a report card is generated using theEBMS, which evaluates performance based upon specific case details. Forexample, an EBMS may assess performance on case with four externalprocess triggers differently than a case in which no external processtriggers occurred.

The EBMS report card can be based on the reporting and action standardsof the LPM or client. The attorney can be graded on how well theattorney meets the mandatory reporting dates and/or how timely andcompetently the attorney actually performed the legal services inquestion. Normally, a letter or number grade is given by report cards.The EBMS can allow for accurate grading based on how much time theattorney took to complete ACEs and/or how well the attorney managedAMEs.

The EBMS can also provide a conversion report that displays both aconventional industry report and an EBMS report card. Other embodimentsof a conversion report can include aggregate time (T) or step milestone(t). In such conversion reports, cases which exceed T could be listedwhile giving the reason, and all cases which have milestone which exceedt could be listed, giving the reasons. Conversion reports are useful tohelp industry players understand EBMS reports.

Various systems and methods that employ the stochastic modeling ofSIEA's described above will now be discussed in connection with FIGS. 46through 54.

Assessing Time for Completion of an SIEA

FIG. 45 illustrates a method 4500 for one embodiment for assessing thetime required for completing an SIEA. The method 4500 applies generally,and may be used before the beginning of an SIEA, or at any point duringthe prosecution of the SIEA. In a first step 4510, milestones aregenerated for the particular type of SIEA being prosecuted within thespecified jurisdiction in which the SIEA is being prosecuted. In asecond step 4520, a total projected time is determined for completion ofthe SIEA by applying a stochastic model. In the preferred embodiment,the stochastic model discussed at length above is used. One of ordinaryskill in the art would appreciate that other stochastic models could beused.

FIG. 46 illustrates a method 4600 associated with one embodiment fordetermining the time required for completing an SIEA. The method 4600includes a first step 4610, in which fixed-frequency events aregenerated for milestones associated with the SIEA being prosecuted. In asecond step 4620, random-frequency events are generated for milestonesassociated with the SIEA being prosecuted. In practice, the steps 4610,4620 may be conducted in either order or in parallel. The events mayinclude “managed events” (as defined and discussed above) havingprojected durations determined from statistical analysis on historicaldata on the actual durations associated with the events. The events mayfurther include “controlled events” (as defined and discussed above)having projected durations determined from procedural requirements forthe SIEA in the specified jurisdiction, court, etc. In a third step4630, the stochastic model of method 4500 is applied to thefixed-frequency and random-frequency events generated in the first andsecond steps 4610, 4620. That stochastic model preferably includessumming the projected durations associated with the fixed-frequencyevents and summing, for the random-frequency events, a projectedduration for the random-frequency event multiplied by a weighting factorassociated with the random-frequency event, wherein the weighting factoris a measure of the likelihood of occurrence of the random-frequencyevent. Preferably, the likelihood of occurrence of random-frequencyevents is determined from statistical analysis on historical data of theoccurrence of such events. In a preferred embodiment, the summing ofdurations is performed using the mathematic model set forth above inEquations 1, 2, and 3. In a preferred embodiment, the method 4600further includes “event triggers” (as defined and discussed above) thatgenerate additional fixed-frequency events and/or random-frequencyevents associated within a milestone. In a preferred embodiment, themethod 4600 also includes event triggers that generate additionalmilestones associated with the SIEA.

FIG. 47 illustrates a method 4700 associated with one embodiment fordetermining the time required for completing an SIEA. The method 4700includes a first step 4710, in which the type of SIEA being prosecutedis identified. For example, one type of SIEA is a post-foreclosureeviction action. In a second step 4720, the specific jurisdiction inwhich the SIEA is being prosecuted is identified. For example, thespecific jurisdiction may be a state, such as California. In a thirdstep 4730, the specific court in which the SIEA is being prosecuted isidentified. For example, a specific court may be Santa Clara SuperiorCourt, in San Jose, Calif. In a fourth step 4740, the specific judge inwhich the SIEA is being prosecuted is identified. For example, the judgemay be identified as Judge Joseph J. Jones of Santa Clara SuperiorCourt. In a fifth step 4750, the time of year in which the SIEA is beingprosecuted is identified.

In a sixth step 4760, historical data on past performance of theprosecution of SIEA's is retrieved. The historical data retrieved in thesixth step 4760 may be filtered to take into account one or more of thefollowing limitations: (1) the type of SIEA being prosecuted; (2) thejurisdiction within which the SIEA is being prosecuted; (3) the courtwithin which the SIEA is being prosecuted; (4) the judge presiding overthe SIEA being prosecuted; and/or (5) the time of year that the SIEA isbeing prosecuted. The historical data includes information on thedurations associated with events associated with the SIEA. The durationinformation may include, for each event, statistical measures includingbut not limited to a mean duration value, a median duration value, amode duration value, and a standard deviation value. The durationinformation may also include a histogram of historic duration values.These statistical measures may be filtered by jurisdiction, judge, etc.as discussed above. This historical information is particularly usefulfor projecting durations for managed events, for which the prosecutingattorney does not have direct control.

In a seventh step 4770, information on procedural requirementsassociated with prosecution of the SIEA is retrieved. These proceduralrequirements are associated with the statutes, procedural rules, etc.associated with the legal process. As such, these requirements depend onthe SIEA type and the specific jurisdiction retrieved in the first andsecond steps 4710, 4720. Some requirements may also depend upon thespecific court identified in the third step 4730 (because of local rulesspecific to different courts). Some requirements may also depend uponthe specific judge identified in the fourth step 4740 (because of localrules specific to different judges). Some requirements may also dependupon the time of year information retrieved in the fifth step 4750(because of Court closings for holidays, etc.). The seven stepsdiscussed above need not be done in any particular order. Likewise, thesteps may be done in parallel or in series. Further, in someembodiments, not all seven steps are utilized.

In an eight step 4780, the information retrieved in the first throughseventh steps 4710-4770 is applied in step 4630 to the fixed-frequencyand random-frequency events using the stochastic model described atlength above.

Managing Completion of an SIEA

FIG. 48 illustrates a method 4800 for one embodiment for managing thecompletion of an SIEA. The method 4800 applies generally, and may beused at any point before or during prosecution of a SIEA. In a firststep 4810, the next milestone to be completed is generated for theparticular type of SIEA being prosecuted within the specifiedjurisdiction in which the SIEA is being prosecuted. In a second step4820, a projected time is determined for completion of the milestone byapplying a stochastic model. In the preferred embodiment, the stochasticmodel discussed at length above is used.

The method of FIG. 46 (discussed above) may be used to determine theprojected duration for completing the next milestone within method 4800.That is, the method 4800 may include the first step 4610, in whichfixed-frequency events are generated for the milestone at issue. In thesecond step 4620, random-frequency events are generated for themilestone at issue. In practice, the steps 4610, 4620 may be conductedin either order or in parallel to determine the duration for completionof the next milestone. In the third step 4630, the stochastic modeldiscussed at length above is applied to the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events generated in the first and second steps 4610,4620.

The method of FIG. 47 (discussed above) may also be used to determinethe projected duration for completing the next milestone within method4800. That is, the determination of a projected duration preferablytakes into account the type of SIEA being prosecuted (identified infirst step 4810), the specific jurisdiction in which the SIEA is beingprosecuted (identified in second step 4720), the specific court(identified in third step 4730), the specific judge (identified infourth step 4740), and the time of year (identified in fifth step 4750).The determination of a projected duration also preferably takes intoaccount historical data on past performance of the prosecution of SIEA's(retrieved in sixth step 4760). The determination of a projectedduration also takes into account information on procedural requirementsassociated with prosecution of the SIEA in the specific jurisdiction(retrieved in seventh step 4770). The information retrieved in the firstthrough seventh steps 4710-4770 is applied to the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events of the milestone at issue using the stochasticmodel described at length above.

FIG. 49 illustrates an optional method 4900 that may be used tofacilitate management of the SIEA. In a first step 4910, a misseddeadline is detected when an attorney fails to indicate completion of amilestone by a projected time for completion. In a second (optional)step 4920, the system provides a message to the attorney soliciting areason for the missed deadline for the milestone. In a third (optional)step 4930, the system provides instructions to the attorney tofacilitate completion of the milestone. In a fourth (optional) step,information relating to the attorney's failure to meet the projecteddeadline is recorded.

Assessing Attorney Performance in Completing SIEA's

FIG. 50 illustrates a method 5000 for one embodiment for assessingattorney performance in prosecuting SIEA's. The method 5000 appliesgenerally, and may be used at any point before or during prosecution ofa SIEA, and may be used on multiple SIEA's handled by an attorney (inparallel and/or in series). In a first step 5010, one or more milestonesand/or events are generated for the SIEA's that are being, and/or havebeen, prosecuted by the attorney being assessed. In a second step 5020,a projected time is determined for completion of the one or moremilestones and/or events by applying a stochastic model.

The method of FIG. 46 (discussed above) may be used to determine theprojected durations for completing the one or more milestones and/orevents within method 5000. That is, the method 5000 may include thefirst step 4610, in which fixed-frequency events are generated for theone or more milestone at issue. In the second step 4620,random-frequency events are generated for the one or more milestone atissue. In practice, the steps 4610, 4620 may be conducted in eitherorder or in parallel to determine the duration for completion of thenext milestone. In the third step 4630, the stochastic model discussedat length above is applied to the fixed-frequency and random-frequencyevents generated in the first and second steps 4610, 4620.

The method of FIG. 47 (discussed above) may also be used to determinethe projected duration for completing the one or more milestones and/orevents within method 5000. That is, the determination of a projectedduration preferably takes into account the type of SIEA being prosecuted(identified in first step 4810), the specific jurisdiction in which theSIEA is being prosecuted (identified in second step 4720), the specificcourt (identified in third step 4730), the specific judge (identified infourth step 4740), and the time of year (identified in fifth step 4750).The determination of a projected duration also preferably takes intoaccount historical data on past performance of the prosecution of SIEA's(retrieved in sixth step 4760). The determination of a projectedduration also takes into account information on procedural requirementsassociated with prosecution of the SIEA in the specific jurisdiction(retrieved in seventh step 4770). The information retrieved in the firstthrough seventh steps 4710-4770 is applied to the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events of the milestone at issue using the stochasticmodel described above.

Referring to FIG. 50, in a third step 5030, the attorney's timeliness isdetermined by comparing the attorney's actual performance (i.e. times ofcompletion) for the one or more milestones and/or events to theprojected times of completion (calculated using the stochastic model).The attorney's timeliness may be quantified in a number of waysincluding but not limited to (1) determining the percentage ofmilestones or events completed by the attorney on or before theprojected deadline; (2) determining the ratio of actual time toprojected time for completing individual milestones or events; (3)determining the percentage of SIEA's fully completed on or before theprojected deadline; and (4) determining the ratio of actual time toprojected time for full completion of the SIEA's. The timeliness may bedetermined separately and/or collectively for (a) different SIEA types;(b) different jurisdictions; (c) different judges; (d) controlled eventsand managed events; (e) fixed-frequency events and random-frequencyevents.

Using Past Performance to Select an Attorney to Prosecute a SIEA

FIG. 51 illustrates a method 5100 for one embodiment for using pastperformance to facilitate the selection of an attorney from a populationof candidate attorneys to prosecute a SIEA. In a first attorneyselection step 5110, a population of candidate attorneys is identifiedfor consideration in prosecuting a SIEA. The population may beidentified, for example, by considering all attorneys with pastexperience prosecuting SIEA's who are licensed to practice law in thejurisdiction in which the SIEA will be prosecuted. The population may befurther limited by other criteria, such as limiting the population toattorneys who have worked previously for a given loan servicer, who haveappeared in front of a particular judge, or who meet some minimumexperience criteria in prosecuting the particular type of SIEA at issue.Once the population of attorneys is identified, the first step 5110 themethod continues, considering each attorney individually.

In a second attorney selection step 5120, information on the attorney'spast performance is received, and the attorney's performance inprosecuting SIEA's is compared to projected deadlines for those SIEA's.The method of FIG. 46 (discussed above) may be used to determine theprojected durations for completing the one or more milestones and/orevents within method 5100. That is, the method 5100 may include thefirst step 4610, in which fixed-frequency events are generated for theone or more milestone at issue. In the second step 4620,random-frequency events are generated for the one or more milestone atissue. In practice, the steps 4610, 4620 may be conducted in eitherorder or in parallel to determine the duration for completion of thenext milestone. In the third step 4630, the stochastic model discussedat length above is applied to the fixed-frequency and random-frequencyevents generated in the first and second steps 4610, 4620.

The method of FIG. 47 (discussed above) may also be used to determinethe projected duration for completing the one or more milestones and/orevents within method 5100. That is, the determination of a projectedduration preferably takes into account the type of SIEA being prosecuted(identified in first step 4810), the specific jurisdiction in which theSIEA is being prosecuted (identified in second step 4720), the specificcourt (identified in third step 4730), the specific judge (identified infourth step 4740), and the time of year (identified in fifth step 4750).The determination of a projected duration also preferably takes intoaccount historical data on past performance of the prosecution of SIEA's(retrieved in sixth step 4760). The determination of a projectedduration also takes into account information on procedural requirementsassociated with prosecution of the SIEA in the specific jurisdiction(retrieved in seventh step 4770). The information retrieved in the firstthrough seventh steps 4710-4770 is applied to the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events of the milestone at issue using the stochasticmodel described above.

Referring to FIG. 51, in a third attorney selection step 5130,responsibility for prosecuting the SIEA is assigned to an attorneydetermined to have the best timeliness rating. The attorney's timelinessrating may be determined in a number of ways including but not limitedto (1) the percentage of milestones or events completed by the attorneyon or before the projected deadline; (2) the ratio of actual time toprojected time for completing individual milestones or events; (3) thepercentage of SIEA's fully completed on or before the projecteddeadline; and (4) the ratio of actual time to projected time for fullcompletion of the SIEA's. The timeliness rating may be determinedseparately and/or collectively for (a) different SIEA types; (b)different jurisdictions; (c) different judges; (d) controlled events andmanaged events; (e) fixed-frequency events and random-frequency events.

Assessing Loan Servicer Performance in Completing SIEA's

FIG. 52 illustrates a method 5200 for one embodiment for assessing loanservicer performance in overseeing the prosecution of SIEA's associatedwith foreclosed real estate secured by loans serviced by the loanservicer. The method 5200 applies generally, and may be used at anypoint before or during prosecution of a SIEA, and may be used onmultiple SIEA's handled by one or more attorneys (in parallel and/or inseries). There are three SIEA's that are most commonly associated withforeclosed real estate: (1) a real estate foreclosure action; (2) abankruptcy action; and (3) a post-foreclosure eviction action. Theforeclosure action is mandatory, while the bankruptcy andpost-foreclosure eviction actions may or may not be necessary, dependingupon the circumstances of each individual case.

In a first foreclosure step 5210, one or more milestones and/or eventsare generated for a foreclosure action that is being prosecuted, or wasprosecuted, under the management of the loan servicer being assessed. Ifthe real estate at issue is also associated with a bankruptcy action,the method includes a first bankruptcy step 5220, wherein one or moremilestones and/or events are generated for the bankruptcy action that isbeing prosecuted, or was prosecuted, under the management of the loanservicer being assessed. If the real estate at issue is also associatedwith a post-foreclosure eviction action, the method includes a firstpost-foreclosure eviction step 5220, wherein one or more milestonesand/or events are generated for the post-foreclosure eviction actionthat is being prosecuted, or was prosecuted, under the management of theloan servicer being assessed.

In a second assessment step 5240, a projected time is determined forcompletion of the one or more milestones and/or events of theforeclosure action and (if necessary) of the bankruptcy action and (ifnecessary) of the post-foreclosure eviction action. The projected timesare determined by applying a stochastic model. In the preferredembodiment, the stochastic model discussed at length above is used. Themethod of FIG. 46 (discussed above) may be used to determine theprojected durations for completing the one or more milestones and/orevents within method 5200. That is, the method 5200 may include thefirst step 4610, in which fixed-frequency events are generated for theone or more milestone at issue. In the second step 4620,random-frequency events are generated for the one or more milestone atissue. In practice, the steps 4610, 4620 may be conducted in eitherorder or in parallel to determine the duration for completion of thenext milestone. In the third step 4630, the stochastic model discussedat length above is applied to the fixed-frequency and random-frequencyevents generated in the first and second steps 4610, 4620.

The method of FIG. 47 (discussed above) may also be used to determinethe projected duration for completing the one or more milestones and/orevents within method 5200. That is, the determination of a projectedduration preferably takes into account the type of SIEA being prosecuted(identified in first step 4810), the specific jurisdiction in which theSIEA is being prosecuted (identified in second step 4720), the specificcourt (identified in third step 4730), the specific judge (identified infourth step 4740), and the time of year (identified in fifth step 4750).The determination of a projected duration also preferably takes intoaccount historical data on past performance of the prosecution of SIEA's(retrieved in sixth step 4760). The determination of a projectedduration also takes into account information on procedural requirementsassociated with prosecution of the SIEA in the specific jurisdiction(retrieved in seventh step 4770). The information retrieved in the firstthrough seventh steps 4710-4770 is applied to the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events of the milestone at issue using the stochasticmodel described above.

Referring to FIG. 52, in a third assessment step 5250 the actual timesfor completion of the one or more milestones and/or events is receivedfor the foreclosure action, the bankruptcy action (if necessary) and thepost-foreclosure eviction action (if necessary). In a fourth assessmentstep 5260, the actual times received in the third step 5250 are comparedto the projected times determined in the second assessment step 5240 inorder to assess the timeliness of the prosecution of the SIEA's. Thetimeliness is determined by comparing the loan servicer's performance(i.e. times of completion by attorneys managed by the loan servicer) forthe one or more milestones and/or events to the projected times ofcompletion (calculated using the stochastic model). The loan servicer'stimeliness may be quantified in a number of ways including but notlimited to (1) determining the percentage of milestones or eventscompleted by the attorneys being managed by the loan servicer on orbefore the projected deadline; (2) determining the ratio of actual timeto projected time for completing individual milestones or events beingmanaged by the loan servicer; (3) determining the percentage of SIEA'sfully completed on or before the projected deadline for SIEA's managedby the loan servicer; and (4) determining the ratio of actual time toprojected time for full completion of the SIEA's being managed by theloan servicer. The timeliness may be determined separately and/orcollectively for (a) different SIEA types; (b) different jurisdictions;(c) different judges; (d) controlled events and managed events; (e)fixed-frequency events and random-frequency events.

Valuing a Loan Secured by Real Estate Associated with a SIEA

FIG. 53 illustrates a method 5300 for one embodiment for assessing thevalue of a loan that is securing real estate associated with one or moreexisting or potential SIEA's. The method 5300 applies generally, and maybe used at any point before or during prosecution of the one or moreSIEA's, and may be applied multiple SIEA's in parallel and/or in series.As discussed above, there are three SIEA's that are most commonlyassociated with foreclosed real estate: (1) a real estate foreclosureaction; (2) a bankruptcy action; and (3) a post-foreclosure evictionaction.

In a first loan valuation step 5310, the remaining milestones aregenerated for completing the SIEA's at issue. In a second loan valuationstep 5320, a projected time is determined for completion of themilestones by applying a stochastic model. In the preferred embodiment,the stochastic model discussed at length above is used. The method ofFIG. 46 (discussed above) may be used to determine the projecteddurations for completing the one or more milestones and/or events withinmethod 5300. That is, the method 5300 may include the first step 4610,in which fixed-frequency events are generated for the one or moremilestone at issue. In the second step 4620, random-frequency events aregenerated for the one or more milestone at issue. In practice, the steps4610, 4620 may be conducted in either order or in parallel to determinethe duration for completion of the next milestone. In the third step4630, the stochastic model discussed at length above is applied to thefixed-frequency and random-frequency events generated in the first andsecond steps 4610, 4620.

The method of FIG. 47 (discussed above) may also be used to determinethe projected duration for completing the milestones within method 5300.That is, the determination of a projected duration preferably takes intoaccount the type of SIEA being prosecuted (identified in first step4810), the specific jurisdiction in which the SIEA is being prosecuted(identified in second step 4720), the specific court (identified inthird step 4730), the specific judge (identified in fourth step 4740),and the time of year (identified in fifth step 4750). The determinationof a projected duration also preferably takes into account historicaldata on past performance of the prosecution of SIEA's (retrieved insixth step 4760). The determination of a projected duration also takesinto account information on procedural requirements associated withprosecution of the SIEA in the specific jurisdiction (retrieved inseventh step 4770). The information retrieved in the first throughseventh steps 4710-4770 is applied to the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events of the milestone at issue using the stochasticmodel described at length above.

Referring to FIG. 53, in a third loan valuation step 5330, the legalcosts are estimated for completing the remaining milestones. This mayinclude fees associated with attorney time (hourly or flat fee) andcosts (e.g., court costs, filing costs, etc.). In a fourth loanvaluation step 5340, a first estimated time/carry cost is determined byapplying an interest rate to the projected time determined in the secondloan valuation step 5320. The interest rate may be based on standardrates (e.g. the prime lending rate), on the borrower's credit score,and/or on any other risk assessment associated with the loan at issue.This first estimated time/carry cost is added to the estimated legalcosts determined in the third loan valuation step 5330.

In a preferred embodiment, the method further includes a fifth loanvaluation step 5350, wherein a second estimated time/carry cost isdetermined by applying a property tax rate to the projected timedetermined in the second loan valuation step 5320. The property tax rateis determined from the requirements of the jurisdiction associated withthe real estate at issue. This second estimated time/carry cost is addedto the estimated legal cost and the first estimated time/carry costdetermined in the third and fourth loan valuation steps 5330, 5340.

In a preferred embodiment, the method further includes a sixth loanvaluation step 5360, wherein a third estimated time/carry cost isdetermined by applying an insurance rate to the projected timedetermined in the second loan valuation step 5320. The insurance rate isdetermined by the insurance policy(ies) associated with the real estateat issue. This third estimated time/carry cost is added to the estimatedlegal cost and the first and second estimated time/carry costsdetermined in the third, fourth, and fifth loan valuation steps 5330,5340, 5350.

By adding together the costs discussed above, the cost of the loan dueto the one or more SIEA's is determined. This cost may be used by theloan servicer to assess the value of the loan when considering the priceto charge to sell the loan.

Valuing a Settlement Offer Associated with a SIEA

FIG. 54 illustrates a method 5400 for one embodiment for assessing thesettlement value of a SIEA litigation. The method 5400 appliesgenerally, and may be used at any point before or during prosecution ofa SIEA, and may be applied to multiple SIEA's in parallel and/or inseries. In a first settlement valuation step 5410, the remainingmilestones are generated for completing the SIEA at issue. In a secondsettlement valuation step 5420, a projected time is determined forcompletion of the milestones by applying a stochastic model. In thepreferred embodiment, the stochastic model discussed at length above isused. The method of FIG. 46 (discussed above) may be used to determinethe projected durations for completing the one or more milestones and/orevents within method 5400. That is, the method 5400 may include thefirst step 4610, in which fixed-frequency events are generated for theone or more milestone at issue. In the second step 4620,random-frequency events are generated for the one or more milestone atissue. In practice, the steps 4610, 4620 may be conducted in eitherorder or in parallel to determine the duration for completion of thenext milestone. In the third step 4630, the stochastic model is appliedto the fixed-frequency and random-frequency events generated in thefirst and second steps 4610, 4620.

The method of FIG. 47 (discussed above) may also be used to determinethe projected duration for completing the milestones within method 5400.That is, the determination of a projected duration preferably takes intoaccount the type of SIEA being prosecuted (identified in first step4810), the specific jurisdiction in which the SIEA is being prosecuted(identified in second step 4720), the specific court (identified inthird step 4730), the specific judge (identified in fourth step 4740),and the time of year (identified in fifth step 4750). The determinationof a projected duration also preferably takes into account historicaldata on past performance of the prosecution of SIEA's (retrieved insixth step 4760). The determination of a projected duration also takesinto account information on procedural requirements associated withprosecution of the SIEA in the specific jurisdiction (retrieved inseventh step 4770). The information retrieved in the first throughseventh steps 4710-4770 is applied to the fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events of the milestone at issue using the stochasticmodel described at length above.

Referring to FIG. 54, in a third settlement valuation step 5430, thelegal costs are estimated for completing the remaining milestones. Thismay include fees associated with attorney time (hourly or flat fee) andcosts (e.g., court costs, filing costs, etc.).

In a fourth settlement valuation step 5440, a first estimated time/carrycost is determined by applying an interest rate to the projected timedetermined in the second settlement valuation step 5420. The interestrate may be based on standard rates (e.g. the prime lending rate), onthe borrower's credit score, and/or on any other risk assessmentassociated with the loan at issue. This first estimated time/carry costis added to the estimated legal costs determined in the third settlementvaluation step 5430.

In a preferred embodiment, the method 5400 further includes a fifthsettlement valuation step 5450, wherein a second estimated time/carrycost is determined by applying a property tax rate to the projected timedetermined in the second settlement valuation step 5420. The propertytax rate is determined from the requirements of the jurisdictionassociated with the real estate at issue. This second estimatedtime/carry cost is added to the estimated legal cost and the firstestimated time/carry cost determined in the third and fourth settlementvaluation steps 5430, 5440.

In a preferred embodiment, the method 5400 further includes a sixthsettlement valuation step 5460, wherein a third estimated time/carrycost is determined by applying an insurance rate to the projected timedetermined in the second settlement valuation step 5420. The insurancerate is determined by the insurance policy(ies) associated with the realestate at issue. This third estimated time/carry cost is added to theestimated legal cost and the first and second estimated time/carry costsdetermined in the third, fourth, and fifth settlement valuation steps5430, 5440, 5450.

The method 5400 further includes a seventh settlement valuation step5470, wherein a settlement value is determined from the costs summedfrom the previous settlement valuation steps 5430, 5440, 5450, 5460.Typically, the settlement value of the case will be above the cost oflitigation for the SIEA (as determined from the previous settlementvaluation steps) and below the resale value of the real estate.

Although this invention has been described in terms of certain preferredembodiments, other embodiments that are apparent to those of ordinaryskill in the art are also within the scope of this invention. Inaddition, methods, processes, and functions described herein are notlimited to any particular sequence, and the acts or blocks relatingthereto can be performed in other sequences that are appropriate. Forexample, described acts or blocks may be performed in an order otherthan that specifically disclosed, or multiple acts or blocks may becombined in a single act or state. Accordingly, the scope of the presentinvention is intended to be defined only by reference to the appendedclaims.

1. A method for determining a projected time for completion of one ormore milestones associated with a security interest enforcement actionin a specified jurisdiction, the method comprising: storing in acomputer readable medium data representing the one or more milestonesassociated with the security interest enforcement action in thespecified jurisdiction; projecting time durations for one or morefixed-frequency events associated with completing one or more of themilestones, the fixed-frequency events being events that will occur in apredetermined manner during completion of the one or more milestones;projecting time durations for one or more random-frequency eventsassociated with completing one or more of the milestones, therandom-frequency events being events that may or may not occur duringcompletion of the one or more milestones; and determining, using one ormore computer processors in communication with the computer readablemedium, a projected completion time for the one or more milestones byapplying a stochastic model that accounts for the occurrence of the oneor more fixed-frequency events and the one or more random-frequencyevents associated with the one or more milestones, wherein applying thestochastic model to the fixed-frequency and random-frequency eventscomprises applying the mathematical formula:${T = {\sum\limits_{k}{\beta_{k}Z^{k}}}},{\forall k},$ wherein T is theprojected time associated with completion of one of the one or moremilestones; k is an index over the one or more fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events associated with completion of the one or moremilestones; β_(k) is a duration associated with event k; for events kthat are fixed-frequency events, Z^(k) equals 1; and for events k thatare random-frequency events, Z^(k) is a measure of the frequency ofoccurrence of event k, such that 0≦Z^(k)≦1.
 2. The method of claim 1,wherein one or more of the events comprise controlled events havingprojected durations determined from procedural requirements for thesecurity interest enforcement action in the specified jurisdiction, andwherein one or more of the events comprise managed events havingprojected durations determined from statistical analysis on historicaldata on the actual durations associated with the managed events.
 3. Themethod of claim 2, wherein the historical data comprises data for theactual durations associated with the managed events within the specifiedjurisdiction.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein Z^(k) for arandom-frequency event is determined from statistical analysis ofhistorical data on the likelihood of occurrence of the random-frequencyevent.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the security interestenforcement action is an action to enforce a lien secured by realproperty, an action to take possession of real property, an action totake possession of personal property, a real estate foreclosure action,or a bankruptcy action.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the one ormore random-frequency events comprise one or more event triggers thatgenerate one or more additional fixed-frequency events and/orrandom-frequency events associated with the milestone within which theevent trigger occurs.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or morerandom-frequency events comprise one or more event triggers thatgenerate one or more additional milestones associated with the securityinterest enforcement action.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein one ormore of the β_(k) values depend on the specified jurisdiction.
 9. Themethod of claim 1, wherein one or more of the Z^(k) values forrandom-frequency events depends on the specified jurisdiction.
 10. Themethod of claim 1, wherein one or more of the β_(k) values depends on aspecified judge in the specified jurisdiction.
 11. The method of claim1, wherein one or more of the Z^(k) values for random-frequency eventsdepends on a specified judge in the specified jurisdiction.
 12. Themethod of claim 1, wherein one or more of the β_(k) values takes intoaccount the time of year that the events take place.
 13. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the stochastic model accounts for error in thefixed-frequency and random-frequency events such that the mathematicalformula is:${T = {\sum\limits_{k}\left( {{\beta_{k}Z^{k}} + ɛ_{k}} \right)}},{\forall k},$wherein ε_(k) is a measure of duration uncertainty associated with eventk.
 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the security interest enforcementaction comprises a post-foreclosure eviction action.
 15. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the projected completion time is a total projected timefor completing all milestones associated with completion of the securityinterest enforcement action.
 16. A method for determining a monetaryvalue for an offer to settle the security interest enforcement action,the method comprising: performing the method of claim 1, wherein theprojected completion time is a total projected time for completing thesecurity interest enforcement action; determining estimated legal costsassociated with completing prosecution of the milestones; adding to theestimated legal costs a first estimated time/carry cost determined byapplying an appropriate interest rate to the total projected time forcompleting the security interest enforcement action; and determining anoffer based on the estimated legal costs and the first estimatedtime/carry cost.
 17. The method of claim 16, further comprising: addinga second estimated time/carry cost associated with property tax costsduring the total time projected for completing the security interestenforcement action; and determining the offer based in part on thesecond estimated time/carry cost.
 18. The method of claim 16, furthercomprising: adding a third estimated time/carry cost associated withproperty insurance costs during the total time projected for completingthe security interest enforcement action; and determining the offerbased in part on the third estimated time/carry cost.
 19. A system fordetermining a projected time for completion of one or more milestonesassociated with a security interest enforcement action in a specifiedjurisdiction, the system comprising: a database stored in a computerreadable medium, the database comprising data representing the one ormore milestones associated with the security interest enforcement actionin the specified jurisdiction, the database further comprising datarepresenting one or more fixed-frequency events that will occur in apredetermined manner during completion of the one or more milestones,the database further comprising data representing one or morerandom-frequency events that may or may not occur during completion ofthe one or more milestones; and a module comprising one or more computerprocessors in communication with the database, the module configured to:project time durations for the one or more fixed-frequency events;project time durations for the one or more random-frequency events; anddetermine a projected completion time for the one or more milestones byapplying a stochastic model that accounts for the occurrence of the oneor more fixed-frequency events and the one or more random-frequencyevents associated with the one or more milestones by applying themathematical formula:${T = {\sum\limits_{k}{\beta_{k}Z^{k}}}},{\forall k},$ wherein T is theprojected time associated with completion of one of the one or moremilestones; k is an index over the one or more fixed-frequency andrandom-frequency events associated with completion of the one or moremilestones; β_(k) is a duration associated with event k; for events kthat are fixed-frequency events, Z^(k) equals 1; and for events k thatare random-frequency events, Z^(k) is a measure of the frequency ofoccurrence of event k, such that 0≦Z^(k)≦1.
 20. The system of claim 19,wherein one or more of the events comprise controlled events havingprojected durations determined from procedural requirements for thesecurity interest enforcement action in the specified jurisdiction, andwherein one or more of the events comprise managed events havingprojected durations determined from statistical analysis on historicaldata on the actual durations associated with the managed events.
 21. Thesystem of claim 19, wherein the one or more random-frequency eventscomprise one or more event triggers that generate one or more additionalfixed-frequency events and/or random-frequency events associated withthe milestone within which the event trigger occurs.
 22. The system ofclaim 19, wherein the one or more random-frequency events comprise oneor more event triggers that generate one or more additional milestonesassociated with the security interest enforcement action.
 23. The systemof claim 19, wherein the module is configured to account for error inthe fixed-frequency and random-frequency events such that themathematical formula for the stochastic model is:${T = {\sum\limits_{k}\left( {{\beta_{k}Z^{k}} + ɛ_{k}} \right)}},{\forall k},$wherein ε_(k) is a measure of duration uncertainty associated with eventk.
 24. The system of claim 19, wherein the security interest enforcementaction is an action to enforce a lien secured by real property, anaction to take possession of real property, an action to take possessionof personal property, a real estate foreclosure action, or a bankruptcyaction.
 25. The system of claim 19, wherein the security interestenforcement action comprises a post-foreclosure eviction action.
 26. Thesystem of claim 19, wherein the projected completion time is a totalprojected time for completing all milestones associated with completionof the security interest enforcement action.
 27. The system of claim 19configured for determining a monetary value for an offer to settle thesecurity interest enforcement action, wherein the module is configuredto: determine a total projected time for completing the securityinterest enforcement action by applying the mathematical formula;determine estimated legal costs associated with completing prosecutionof the milestones; determine a first estimated time/carry costdetermined by applying an appropriate interest rate to the totalprojected time for completing the security interest enforcement action;and determine an offer based on the estimated legal costs and the firstestimated time/carry cost.
 28. The system of claim 19 configured forassessing the performance of an attorney responsible for prosecuting thesecurity interest enforcement action in the specified jurisdiction,wherein the database comprises information on the attorney's actualperformance in prosecuting the security interest enforcement action, theinformation on the attorney's actual performance includes an actualcompletion time for the one or more milestones, and wherein the moduleis configured to determine the timeliness of the attorney's actualperformance by comparing the actual completion time to the projectedcompletion time.
 29. The system of claim 28, wherein the module isconfigured to determine the timeliness of the attorney's actualperformance by comparing an actual completion time for a singlemilestone associated with the security interest enforcement action to aprojected completion time for the single milestone.
 30. The system ofclaim 28, wherein the module is configured to determine the timelinessof the attorney's actual performance by comparing an actual completiontime for meeting all milestones associated with completion of thesecurity interest enforcement action to a total projected timeassociated with meeting all the milestones associated with completion ofthe security interest enforcement action.